2002 planning minutes
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff;
Council Liaison Turgeon, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. December 4, 2001
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, Approving the December 4, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes, as presented. Motion passed 7/0.
STUDY SESSION
1.
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Director Nielsen reviewed a draft of a subdivision ordinance revision pertaining to non-platted
subdivisions. He noted the use of registered land surveys in the process. He also shared the changes in
providing an easier process for minor subdivision, previously referred to as simple subdivisions, and lot
combinations. The changes to this process would primarily affect the R1-D, Single-Family Residential
Zoning Districts, in an effort to maintain affordable housing stock within the City. He noted historically,
the R1-D districts were typically the oldest platted lots in Shorewood, and this zoning district was
designed to recognize existing lots and allow for them to be used as the City grew over time. As part of
his recommendations for the draft ordinance, Director Nielsen noted a change to the policy for requests to
combine two existing platted lots or lots of record. This change included the stipulation that two
combined lots resulting in a single lot was not to be greater in area than one hundred twenty-five percent
(125%) of the minimum lot size for the zoning district in which it was located. Similarly, in requests to
divide a lot from a larger tract of land, creating no more than two lots, each lot must meet the minimum
size and area requirements for the zoning district in which the property was located. In the R-lD, Single-
Family Residential zoning district, neither divided lot may be greater than one hundred twenty-five
percent (125%) of the minimum lot size for the zoning district.
Commissioner White questioned the potential need for this stipulation in the Shore land Districts as well.
Commissioner Woodruff noted that making lots smaller would not change the scale of the homes being
built on the smaller lots. Commissioner Borkon questioned whether aesthetics could possibly be
regulated in terms of scale and character throughout various districts, such as this one. Director Nielsen
explained aesthetics issues were quite difficult to regulate, as subjectiveness would be inevitable. He also
commented consideration of design district guidelines might be beneficial in the future in efforts to
address the concerns of scale and aesthetics.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2002
Page 2 of3
.
Chair Bailey stated major initiatives were being discussed this evening that would bring significant
ramifications to these districts. A brief discussion then ensued regarding consideration of the proposed
policy changes. Consensus was given by the Commission to recommend use of the proposed guidelines
in the R-ID district and also further consideration at a later date should be given to the use of these
guidelines in the Shoreland districts. Council Liaison Turgeon commented consideration should also be
given to recommending the use of the proposed maximum lot size guidelines in wetland areas.
2. PLANNING DISTRICT AREA PLANS
Director Nielsen next reviewed the data sheet for Zoning District 9 within the City. He noted this district
to be bounded on the north by State Highway 7; Old Market Road and Silver Lake to the east; Mill Street
and the ShorewoodlExcelsior border to the west; and the ShorewoodlChanhassan border to the south.
This district was largely comprised of Christmas Lake with dramatic wooded topography and wetland
basins surrounding the lake. Current zoning included mostly Single-Family Residential areas with some
planned unit developments and Neighborhood Convenience Commercial as well.
Current Land Use was consistent with zoning in the district; however, Director Nielsen explained St.
John's cemetery occupied much of the area between Covington Road and Old Market Road. In addition,
a small boat launch site, owned by the Shorewood and operated by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources existed on Merry Lane on the west side of the Christmas Lake. With regard to proposed land
use, continuation of the existing zoning pattern was recommended. He noted an opportunity could exist
in the future for possible acquisition of property allowing for areas of open space conservation within the
district.
.
A traffic study was planned for Radisson Road. He noted in spite of the Southeast water tower being
located in the district, municipal water service was available to a limited number of homes along Old
Market Road and Covington Road, and there were no plans for extending water further at this time. Park
land consisted of the Merry Lake access, however, he noted, Silverwood Park, located on the west side of
Zoning District 11, served the eastern portion of this district.
He reminded the Commission the draft text would be forthcoming at a future meeting for final approval.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, approving the data sheet for Planning District 9 as presented.
Motion passed 7/0.
Director Nielsen next reviewed the data sheet for Planning District 10. He explained this district was
bounded on the west by Silver Lake; Covington Road on the north; Vine Hill Road on the east; and the
ShorewoodlChanhassan municipal border on the south. He noted Silver Lake was the dominant physical
feature with wetlands located to the north and south of Silver Lake Trail. A tributary to Purgatory Creek
flowed easterly from the northeast corner of Silver Lake.
Because the current land use and zoning included fully developed single-family residential planned unit
developments, he recommended the current development pattern be maintained in the future. Vine Hill
Road and Covington Road served as collector routes to distribute traffic to Highway 7 to the north and to
Townline Road to the south. A pedestrian/bike trail had been constructed along the west side of Vine Hill
Road at the request of the neighborhood residents. No parkland existed within this district; however,
Silverwood Park was located immediately to the north.
. Pisula moved, Packard seconded, approving the data sheet for Planning District 10 as presented.
Motion passed 7/0.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2002
Page 3 of 3
3.
2002 WORK PROGRAM
Director Nielsen presented and reviewed the proposed 2002 Planning Commission Work Program.
Potential issues to be addressed in Study Session format included: further enhancement of the subdivision
ordinance, organized refuse collection, County Road 19 Corridor Study, issues pertaining to historic
preservation, variances, and right-of way regulations. The Commission agreed to add issues regarding
maximum/minimum lot combinations/subdivisions in the Shoreland district, and systemic traffic issues in
development areas.
Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, approving the 2002 Planning Commission Work Program as
amended. Motion passed 7/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen reviewed a draft Agenda for the January 15,2002, Planning Commission Meeting,
which included requests for a Setback Variance, Simple Subdivision/Combination, and Public Hearings
regarding requests for Conditional Use Permits, Subdivision Ordinance Revisions, and a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for property at 24140 Smithtown Road.
6.
REPORTS
Commissioner Gagne reported on matters considered and actions taken at the December 10,2001,
Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Council Liaison Turgeon reported on matters considered and actions taken at the January 7, 2002, City
Council Special Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Commissioner Woodruff stated a meeting of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Citizens Advisory
Board had taken place on January 7, 2002. She briefly outlined potential projects being considered by the
Board for the Year 2002 as well.
Commissioner Borkon stated she would be the liaison for the January 14,2002, Regular City Council
Meeting. Commissioner Woodruff stated she would be the liaison for the January 28, 2002, Regular City
Council Meeting.
7. ADJOURN
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the January 8,2002, Planning Commission Meeting
at 9:14 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recordin!! Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7 :00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White and Woodruff;
Council Liaison Turgeon, and Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. January 8, 2002
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Approving the January 8, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as amended on Page 2, Paragraph 1, Sentence 3, change "further consideration should be
given" to "further consideration at a later date should be given," and Paragraph 7, Sentence 3,
change "form" to "from," and Paragraph 8, Sentence 1, change "recommend" to "recommended,"
and on Page 3, Paragraph 1, Sentence 3, omit "lighting, diversity in trees being recommended for
use in preservation and reforestation plans." Motion passed 7/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: D. Carter
Location: 26330 Noble Road
Director Nielsen stated at the request ofthe applicant, this matter should be continued to the February 5,
2002, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion passed 7/0.
Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, continuing a Request for a Setback Variance to February 5,
2002, for D. Carter, 26330 Noble Road. Motion passed 7/0.
2. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION
Applicant: Richard Bowman
Location: 20025/19915 Manor Road
Director Nielsen explained the applicant's home was located atop a hill in the center of approximately 8
acres of land at 20025 Manor Road. The applicant proposed conveying the northern 40 feet of his
property to the owner to the north. The lot included wetland areas to the north and south of the home site.
He noted ordinarily this matter was quite simple, however, this request was complicated due to the fact
that the property to the north was located in Deephaven, Minnesota. He also noted the Deephaven parcel
contained approximately 51, 000 square feet of area, some of which was wetland.
He noted the proposed division/combination would not adversely impact any future subdivision of the
Bowman property; however, certain issues would need to be addressed as part of the request. Since the
property would extend across municipal boundaries, it would have two separate tax identification
numbers. So the 40-foot parcel would never be conveyed as a separate lot, it was also recommended that
protective covenants be recorded with each parcel, stating this intent. Since the previous recommendation
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 2 of9
. involved property in Deephaven, Director Nielsen recommended the City of Deephaven approve the
division/combination of the two sites. In addition, no buildings should be allowed to extend over the
municipal boundary, and the City of Deephaven should handle all building permit requests.
Mr. Mark Kawell, 19915 Manor Road, prospective buyer to the north, stated he would be available to
answer any questions the Commission had regarding this matter.
Pisula moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Approval of a Simple SubdivisionlCombination
for Richard Bowman, 20025/19915 Manor Road, subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed
7/0. With the approval of the maker and seconder of the motion, the motion was amended to
include the provision no buildings should be allowed to extend over the municipal boundary as part
of the protective covenant.
3. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-PARKING LOT
Applicant: Lake Fellowship Unitarian Church
Location: 24575 Glen Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7: 17 P.M. and reviewed the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing. He noted any matters recommended for approval this evening would appear on the City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda for January 28, 2002.
.
Director Nielsen reviewed the background regarding this matter, noting the Lake Fellowship Unitarian
Church had requested a Conditional Use Permit relative to the paving of the church parking lot at 24575
Glen Road. The church fellowship had been advised in September, 2001, they had violated the City's
Zoning Code by paving the church parking area without the necessary permits. Because churches are
conditional uses within residential zoning districts, any modification to the site would require approval of
a conditional use permit. Since the work was mostly completed, this request was for an "after-the-fact"
permit. He also noted an extension had been granted from the originally designated deadline for
compliance, in order for the Fellowship to complete a survey of the site and a wetland delineation.
Director Nielsen then reviewed the zoning designations for the site as well as land uses and zoning
surrounding the site. He noted the site to be quite wooded and characterized by a knoll in the center,
dropping off twenty feet or more to wetland areas on the east and west sides. The wetland to the east of
the City extended down into the City's Gideon Glen project. The church building and parking area were
situated on the front third of the site. The building contained approximately 1120 square feet of area, of
which the main assembly area occupied 720 square feet.
.
With regard to the requirements set forth in the City's Zoning Code, Director Nielsen noted there were
several issues of concern requiring correction for compliance within the request for a Conditional Use
Permit. He noted with the exception ofthe access drive, no portion of the parking lot would be allowed to
be located within the frontyard setback area. Currently, the parking lot, as paved, encroached
approximately 28 feet into the setback area. Also, he noted the applicants' survey was inconsistent with
regard to the correct number of parking stalls found in the landscape plan. He reviewed a number of
options for providing the correct number of parking spaces on the site, noting there was room for a
maximum of 13 spaces, based upon 9' x 20' stalls. In order to achieve the 13 spaces the length of the
parking lot would allow, the depth of the lot must be at lease 40 feet. This would provide for one 18-foot
deep tier of parking with a 22-foot aisle. In order to accomplish this, 10 to 12 feet of paving must be
added to the south side of the parking lot, after the encroaching pavement had been removed. More
parking could be achieved using a two-tier parking lot, he explained.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 3 of 9
The City's Zoning Code required parking lots to have continuous poured concrete curbing around the
perimeter of the lot. Parking spaces must be striped to achieve the required 9' x 20' minimum size. He
explained the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) was also reviewing this request. The
MCWD had expressed concerns that continuous curbing would channel water more rapidly to the wetland
area to the east. As a compromise, it was suggested the applicants be allowed to place concrete blocks,
anchored in place and backfilled, to create the required curb barrier. The cores of the block should be
oriented horizontally to allow drainage to pass through to the soil behind the curb. He commented this
suggestion strayed from the ordinance a bit, but would meet City expectations and satisfy MCWD
requirements.
Furthermore, he noted the landscaping plan submitted appeared adequate, however, the plants to the east
of the driveway must be kept to a maximum height of 30 inches to maintain sight lines for cars exiting the
site to Glen Road. Also, upon review of this request, it was discovered that the church property consisted
of three separate parcels of land. He recommended a condition of approval include a requirement that the
three lots be legally combined within Hennepin County records. He recommended the Conditional Use
Permit be granted subject to correction of the pavement to comply with the Code, using one of the options
presented this evening. Further, he recommended the work to be completed, including the striping,
landscaping, and curbing as recommended, be completed no later than the end of July, 2002. The
modified plan should also be subject to the requirements of the MCWD.
Mr. Tom Everson, a Chaska resident representing the Lake Fellowship Unitarian Church, publicly
apologized for the inadequate handling of this matter. He noted poor choices were made as well as an
assumption that the contractor responsible for paving the lot had properly secured the correct permits
from the City. He explained it was the intention of the Church to work with the City to correct the non-
compliant areas as best as possible. He stated the parking lot had not been expanded in any way. The
paving was done in effort to stop the sinking ground and mud on the site in the parking area. He also
requested posts be allowed to be utilized instead of the concrete blocks. He stated this would designate
the edge of the parking area and would also allow the parking lot to "sheet." He noted people had left the
Church because of aesthetics involved in this matter. He requested the Commission allow the parking lot
to be "grandfathered in," noting it was never the intent of the Church to be deceptive.
Mr. Clay Atkinson, 5735 Brentridge Drive, stated he was one of the people that had left the Church
because of this matter, however, he stated it was due to the procedural issues involved rather than
aesthetics. He also stated he believed the paving was done without intent. He noted the lot had been
there for 40 years, and inappropriate processes had been utilized to make decisions about paving the lot.
He likened the Church to a family complete with the normal amount of family quarrels related to money.
He also requested the Commission give consideration to extending the deadline to allow the Fellowship to
generate funds to properly stripe the lot.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:41 P.M.
A brief discussion by the Commission ensued regarding the history and soil content of the site. In
addition, discussion occurred regarding the specifics of removal of the paved area. Mr. Everson also
noted the contractor responsible for paving the parking area was present this evening if the Commission
had any questions of him.
Commissioner White questioned the purpose of the continuous curbing. Director Nielsen explained it
was not to keep the water on the lot, but to keep the cars on the pavement. Without a barrier such as
proposed, cars and snowplows would run off the edge of the pavement and create erosion control issues.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 4 of9
. Mr. Everson stated he had spoken with MCWD representatives. He stated the MCWD had requested the
parking lot "sheet drainage" and representatives had proposed an agreement be signed by the Fellowship
stating the asphalt would be swept twice a year to avoid mud and debris from building up on the parking
lot.
Chair Bailey stated he had concerns with deviating from the Code in this matter. Director Nielsen stated
he had recommended the concrete blocks, rather than the continuous poured concrete based on the
MCWD idea of sheeting consistently around the edge. He acknowledged Chair Bailey's concern that
what was being requested was quite close to requiring a variance. Chair Bailey stated he was concerned
the Commission was being asked to be subjective in this case, noting the post and chain would seem to
necessitate a variance request.
Mr. Everson requested clarification on the issues regarding a variance. Various members of the
Commission provided clarification regarding the differences between a request for a Conditional Use
Permit and a request for a Variance in this matter.
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, approving a Conditional Use Permit, subject to staff
recommendations, for the Lake Fellowship Unitarian Church, 24575 Glen Road.
Commissioner Borkon expressed concern for the blocks with holes being utilized instead of the
continuous curbing consistent with Zoning Code requirements. Chair Bailey and Commissioner
Woodruff also agreed. Director Nielsen noted the MCWD might have different requirements than the
City that could possibly create a hardship in this matter and noted most church parking lots were paved.
.
Commissioner Borkon asked whether any other options were available and suggested, if not, she
recommended the use of a variance in this matter. Director Nielsen also agreed and recommended
continuing this matter until the City Engineer could address any MCWD concerns and determine whether
other curbing options could be utilized to meet the Zoning Code requirements, thus, avoiding setting a
precedent in this case.
Without objection from the Commission, Commissioner Pisula withdrew the motion on the floor.
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, continuing this request for a Conditional Use Permit for Lake
Fellowship Unitarian Church, 24575 Glen Road, until March 6, 2002. Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Bailey encouraged Mr. Everson to begin dealing with issues that would be found in a variance
request related to this matter.
4. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-CU.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SO.FT.
Applicant: Russell and Luaina Hagen
Location: 5790 Christmas Lake Point
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:20 P.M.
.
Director Nielsen explained the applicants live at 5790 Christmas Lake Point and have purchased the home
next door at 5795 Christmas Point. The applicants proposed to demolish the existing house at 5795,
combine the two lots and add on to their existing house and garage. Since the total amount of garage
space on the site would exceed 1200 square feet of floor area, a Conditional Use Permit was being
requested.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 5 of9
. He noted the property was zoned Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contained a total of 113,303
square feet of area (2.6 acres) between the two lots. The applicants proposed adding 2415 feet to the
main level of the home, with approximately the same floor area on the lower level. The total main floor
area would be 4875 square feet. The new garage space would contain 938 square feet, bringing the total
area of accessory space to 1638 square feet.
Director Nielsen reviewed the criteria relating to this request, noting the amount of hardcover on the site
would be reduced as a result of this project. In addition, he noted the applicants' architect had been very
careful to comply with the 20-foot bluff setback. The grade on the east side of the home would be
restored after the old house would be demolished. Nonconforming structures near the shoreline on the
east side of the lot would be removed as a condition of the building permit. Architectural compatibility
was not considered to be an issue. For these reasons, he recommended approval as presented.
Director Nielsen stated the Hagens were in attendance this evening. Mr. Hagen stated he would be
available for any further questions regarding the project. Mr. Jody Keppers, architect from Keith Waters
and Associates representing the applicants, was also in attendance and presented a computer enhanced
drawing of the proposal, noting he would also be available for any further questions.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:26 P.M.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending approval for a Conditional Use Permit, subject
to staff recommendations, for Accessory Space Over 1200 Square Feet for Russell and Luaina
Hagen, 5790 Christmas Lake Point. Motion passed 7/0.
. Chair Bailey noted this item would appear on the Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for January 28,
2002.
After a brief survey of the audience and without objection from the Commission, Chair Bailey
recommended reviewing Items 6 and 7 prior to addressing Item 5 on this evening's Agenda.
Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 8:25 P.M., and reconvened the meeting at 8:32 P.M.
5. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REVISIONS
This item was moved to follow Item 7 in this evening's Agenda.
6. 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT-
LOW/MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL TO PUBLIC
Proiect: Public Safety Facility
Location: 24140 Smithtown Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:33 P.M.
.
Director Nielsen explained the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) had purchased the property at 24140
Smithtown Road for use as a joint police and fire facility. The site contained approximately 6.75 acres
and was located in a Single and Two-Family Residential zoning district. He also explained a public
safety facility such as this would be listed as a conditional use in residential districts. It was
recommended the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan be amended to address the use of the property as a
public safety facility.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 6 of9
He then reviewed the proposed text changes to the Comprehensive Plan, noting the proposed revisions
recommend the police and fire departments share one facility on the subject site. He also noted the
current land use designation for the property was "Low to Medium Residential" and as a public safety
facility would need to be changed to "Public." Additionally, he explained references would be made in
the text to protecting the residential neighborhood to the east and maintaining the majority of the activity
to the Public Works maintenance drive and away from Shorewood Lane. He noted aside from being a
residential street, sight lines from Shorewood Lane to County Road 19 were not as good as the
maintenance drive intersection. He noted the Conditional Use Permit would include considerable detail
with respect to the actual site design, and it was anticipated the Conditional Use Permit would be
scheduled for a Public Hearing in March or April of this year. He recommended approval of this
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and noted EFD Fire Chief Mark DuCharme was in attendance
this evening should there be any questions.
There were no questions from the Commission regarding need or proposed text revisions related to this
matter.
Allan Vanderlinde, 5550-5560 Shorewood Lane, was concerned for the impact the proposed facility
would have on his property. Chair Bailey reminded the audience of the purpose of the request before the
Commission this evening.
Joanne Schaub, 5465 Timber Lane, questioned whether the EFD facility was placed far enough from the
current firehouse in Excelsior. She also was concerned for the use of sirens in the area. Fire Chief
DuCharme explained there were no sirens on the proposed fire stations, and the station in Excelsior would
be decommissioned. He noted the current station was leased from the City of Excelsior, and the EFD had
no control over the current sirens being activated throughout each day. He noted firefighters were
dispatched by pagers currently. In response to Ms. Schaub's question, Fire Chief DuCharme explained
the EFD was in negotiations regarding a proposed site in Deephaven for a facility on the eastern side of
the South Lake Minnetonka community.
Ron Rousar, 5585 Shorewood Lane, stated he was appreciative of the spirit Fire Chief DuCharme shared
in his concern that the EFD be a good neighbor within the residential district. He thought it an advantage
to receive services in such close proximity to his property, but hoped the EFD was conducive to keeping
order on a site that was not owner-occupied. In addition, he hoped to be considered in adjustments being
made to the site. Fire Chief DuCharme explained the City and the EFD wanted to be sure the Fire District
would be a good neighbor, and Mr. Rousar's property was of foremost concern. In addition, he
commented the site was being designed to enhance rather than detract from surrounding properties.
Ms. Schaub questioned whether plans had been made to interact with the County Road 19 Redevelopment
project in the area. Fire Chief DuCharme explained he believed the redevelopment project made it a great
time to move the proposed public safety facility project forward as property owners in the area would be
disrupted only one time while both projects were being completed.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:53 P.M.
Commissioner Gagne stated he was concerned for signalization in the area and would like to avoid having
any additional traffic on Shorewood Lane. Commissioner Packard also agreed.
Mr. Vandelinde questioned the need for the new facility. Fire Chief DuCharme explained the current fire
facility was over 50 years old and was inadequate for future demands. Chair Bailey noted there was no
debate to the need for the facility this evening.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 70f9
. Chair Bailey reopened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing for additional clarification
regarding the proposed facility at 9:03 P.M., and again closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public
Hearing at 9:06 P.M.
Commissioner Borkon asked for clarification regarding jurisdictional powers and characteristic uses for
the EFD. Director Nielsen explained the EFD was a separate entity subordinate to the member cities'
Councils. Fire Chief DuCharme explained there would be classroom and field training on the site, and as
plans were in the "design phase" currently, he was guessing this training would occur on the west side of
the facility.
Commissioner Borkon then asked if consideration had been given to expansion on site for additional uses.
Fire Chief DuCharme stated consideration had been given to the future activities on the site with regard to
Emergency Management practices. He noted there had been talk of a training facility, but there were no
plans currently for such a facility due to the cost. Also, he commented plans were being made to keep the
portion of the property near the trail as park-like as possible and still allow access to the trail from the
front of the property. He stated there were no plans for specific future activities for the site, but would not
rule out plans for use in the future.
Director Nielsen, in response to Commissioner Borkon's question, stated the EFD would need to meet
City zoning code requirements with any future requests for expansion on the site.
Mr. Rousar requested lighting be minimized on the site as much as possible when giving consideration to
plans for the site.
.
Chair Bailey commented it was important that the facility work with the neighborhood and not become an
imposition, as the site was not a police and fire facility when surrounding neighbors moved to that
location. Director Nielsen stated the City must meet the requirements of its own rules, noting any future
changes would require use of the Conditional Use Permitting process.
Gagne moved, White seconded, Recommending Approval for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
from Low/Medium Residential to Public, subject to staff recommendations, for the Public Safety
Facility, 24140 Smithtown Road.
Commissioner Borkon stated she wholeheartedly supported the need for the project but was a bit
uncomfortable approving this matter, as the site plans were somewhat vague and ambiguous at this time.
She encouraged the City to be cautious in steps taken to support the project without having definitive
plans for the future.
Chair Bailey stated he supported the need, but thought all parties involved needed to be cognizant there
were neighbors living close by that had not requested to be located next to a facility such as the kind
being proposed.
Motion passed 7/0.
7. REVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC
SAFETY FACILITY
.
Administrator Dawson explained the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) had identified the property at 24140
Smithtown Road as the best geographic location for the west station in a two-station system to serve its
five cities. Since the acquisition of the property for this purpose, the councils of the four member cities of
the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) had made commitments also to build a new
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 8 of9
. police station on the property. The project would be known as the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety
Facility, in which the police and fire departments would be jointly housed. He noted, with shared
facilities and a common site, it was estimated that approximately $1 million would be saved compared to
constructing facilities on separate sites. He then reviewed the involvement of the Shorewood Economic
Development Authority (EDA), and explained eligibility requirements for an EDA project such as this
one. Upon review of the sequence of actions regarding this matter, he noted State statute required the
Commission provide a "written opinion" that the project plan for the facility conformed to the general
plan for the City's development. He explained consideration should be given by the Commission as to
whether the use was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan with regard to designated land use for
the site, provision of facilities to deliver public services, transportation, general development policies, etc.
He also explained the opinion from the Commission that the Project Plan was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan did not indicate the Commission had many any recommendation on site plans or
building designs.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Approving the drafted opinion as presented. Motion passed 7/0.
Administrator Dawson and Fire Chief DuCharme thanked the Commission for its consideration in these
matters this evening.
The Commission next addressed Item 5 in this Agenda.
A PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REVISIONS
.
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 10:04 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the Commission had been presented with a complete update of the Shorewood
Subdivision Ordinance, noting the current ordinance had been drafted in 1971. He explained this
ordinance regulated how land could be subdivided or split up within the City. The goal of the revision
was to bring the ordinance up to date with current statutes in a standardized format as well as establishing
rules and regulations that would implement good planning practices within the Shorewood
Comprehensive Plan.
The draft ordinance included a number of revisions including definitions of preliminary and final plat as
well as procedures for filing and review, noting engineering standards for construction of streets and
utilities would be addressed under a separate design manual. In addition, he stated the ordinance would
now include processes for considering issues of resubdivision, drainage and utility easements, public
utilities, minor subdivisions/combinations, and variances. He recommended continuing this matter until
February 5,2002, pending review by the City Attorney and Engineer.
As there was no one present wishing to address this issue, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Hearing at 10:07 P.M.
The Commission next reviewed the proposed language for the ordinance.
Packard moved, White seconded, continuing the review of the Subdivision Ordinance until
February 5 2002. Motion passed 7/0.
.
8. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 9 of9
. After a brief flurry of nominations for the Planning Commission Chair and Vice-Chair positions, Mr. Jeff
Bailey accepted nomination for Chair, and Mr. James Pisula accepted nomination for Vice-Chair for the
upcomIng year.
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, approving Mr. Jeff Bailey as Chair and Mr. James Pisula as Vice-
Chair for the Planning Commission for the Year 2002. Motion passed 7/0.
9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen noted there were one or two items requiring consideration on the February 5, 2002,
Planning Commission Agenda. The Carter variance has been continued to that date. Nielsen did not
recall what the other item might be. In addition, review of Planning District #11, and discussion
regarding the Organized Refuse Collection were also slated for the Agenda as well.
10. REPORTS
Commissioner Borkon reported on matters considered and actions taken at the January 14,2002, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
The Commission established Liaisons to the City Council as follows:
.
Month
February
March
April
May
June
July
Commissioner
Pisula
Packard
Borkon
Woodruff
Gagne
White
11. ADJOURNMENT
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the January 15,2002, Planning Commission Meeting
at 10:43 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon (arrived at 7:03 P.M.); Gagne, Pisula, White, and
Woodruff; Council Liaison Turgeon, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Packard
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. January 15, 2002
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, approving the January 15, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as amended, on Page 1, add "Roll Call-Present: Chair Bailey, Commissioners Borkon,
Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White and Woodruff; Council Liaison Turgeon, and Planning Director
Nielsen-Absent: None", and on Page 2, Paragraph 1, change" homeowner to the north" to
"prospective buyer to the north", and on Page 3, Paragraph 3, Sentence 6, omit "white chains with
Center Car Here signs", and omit Paragraph 7 on the same page. Motion passed 6/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: D. Carter
Location: 26330 Noble Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 P.M. and briefly reviewed the procedures utilized in a
Public Hearing, noting any items recommended for approval would be on a Regular City Council
Meeting Agenda February 11, 2002.
Director Nielsen reviewed the history pertaining to this matter, noting the applicant had purchased the
property with the intention of building upon the lot. Approximately half the property was comprised of
wetland, and was considered a lot of record. As such, the lot was in existence prior to the City's
regulation of wetland areas, and the applicant would have been allowed to build up to the wetland.
However, due to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) regulations, the applicant would
currently need to abide by a 35-foot setback from the wetland. In so doing, the applicant was required to
request a 15-foot frontyard setback from the City.
Director Nielsen also stated there were some concerns regarding the request for a 15-foot frontyard
setback. He explained he had suggested the house be redesigned to decrease the amount of variance
being requested. He also commented a compromise could possibly be reached between the City and the
MCWD regarding a frontyard setback. In addition, he explained this matter had been placed on the
January 15, 2002, Planning Commission Agenda at the request of the applicant. As of that meeting,
revised plans had not been submitted, and thus, the matter was continued until this evening's meeting.
Revised plans had not yet been submitted, nor any comments heard from the applicant regarding progress
being made in the matter, thus, Director Nielsen recommended denial of the request for setback variance
in this matter.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 5, 2002
Page 2 of 5
Chair Bailey noted Mr. Dewey Carter was not in attendance this evening to speak to this matter.
Mr. Tim Leister, 26350 Oak Ridge Circle, stated he was the neighbor to the north adjoining the wetland
area. He stated the water in the wetland area would rise past the weed line and into his lot in the spring.
He expressed concern for any house being built on the lot, as it would most likely be very wet in at least
one season of the year.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M.
Commissioner Borkon also requested clarification regarding possibilities for reapplication in this matter,
should the applicant still wish to proceed through the variance process. Director Nielsen provided this
clarification.
Commissioner White questioned whether any information had been made available from the MCWD
regarding this matter. Director Nielsen stated he was not aware that any compromise had been reached
with regard to this matter.
Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, denying the request, as per Staff request, for a Setback Variance
for D. Carter, 26330 Noble Road.
Chair Bailey stated this denial was in no way due to the lack of attendance this evening by the applicant.
He stated he was uncomfortable with the significant encroachment issue.
Director Nielsen stated the variance regulations pertaining to this property would render the lot
unbuildable without some compromise between the City and the MCWD.
Commissioner Gagne reiterated the lot had been vacant for some time for a reason, and someone would
need to decrease the size of the house being built in effort to work within the buildable area.
Motion passed 6/0.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REVISIONS
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M., noting this matter had been continued from the
January 15, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting.
Director Nielsen presented a final draft of the Subdivision Ordinance. He explained the City Attorney
and City Engineer had reviewed this draft with no substantive changes.
With no one from the audience wishing to speak on this matter, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at 7:27 P.M.
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, recommending approval of the revised Subdivision Ordinance,
subject to further typographical corrections. Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey stated the Planning Commission would begin the Study Session portion of this evening's
Agenda with the next item.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 5, 2002
Page 3 of 5
3. PLANNING DISTRICT AREA PLAN NO. 11
Director Nielsen presented text for Planning District Area No.9 and the Data Sheet for Planning District
Area No. 11. He noted the text for Planning District No.9 would be available for final review at the
March 6, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting. He also noted there would be a Joint Study Session
Meeting with the Council and Planning Commission scheduled for March 19,2002.
Director Nielsen explained Planning District Area No. 11 was bounded by State Highway 7 to the north;
Vine Hill Road to the east, and Old Market Road and Covington Road to the south and west. He noted
the terrain to be rolling and fairly wooded with two large wetland basins as a tributary to Purgatory Creek.
This district was currently zoned in various ways. While this district was zoned predominantly sing1e-
family Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.), there were also areas zoned Commercial, General
Commercial, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial, and Neighborhood Commercial as part of this
district. ill addition, there was one parcel on Covington Road zoned Single-Family Residential. The
current land use indicated a mixture of Single-Family Residential lot size, ranging in size from quarter
acre lots to three-quarter acre lots. He noted continuation of current land use and zoning patterns should
remain part of the proposed land use for this district. ill addition, any undeveloped land should remain
Single-Family Residential.
With regard to transportation and circulation in this district, he noted collector street functions were split
between Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road. Pedestrian traffic had been accommodated along both
streets and tied into the Minnetonka trail system to the east.
.
He further noted the area to be entirely served by both sanitary sewer and city water. Si1verwood Park
served as a neighborhood park in this district as well.
Commissioner Borkon questioned why there was not a coffee shop within the commercial center
bordering State Highway 7 and Old Market Road. Director Nielsen explained current lease agreements
with various retailers within the center prohibited the introduction of a coffee shop into that shopping
center.
Commissioner Borkon also questioned the opportunity for telecommunications with the district as well as
a brief historical review of issues regarding the pedestrian trails in the Waterford portion of this district.
Director Nielsen explained the backlot areas from approximately the Si1verwood Park area to State
Highway 7 were owned by the City of Shorewood and were purchased with the intention of creating a
trail in that space. At the request of the neighborhood residents, a trail was instead placed as a sidewalk
along Old Market Road.
Chair Bailey stated he thought a reference to the backlot areas should be included within the proposed
text for this Planning District for reference in the future. Commissioner Borkon also agreed, noting the
back10t areas should remain public property. ill addition, she requested recognition be given to the
sidewalk/trail compromise as it was based on neighborhood demand.
The Commission gave consensus for the text for Planning District No. 9 and for the data sheet for
Planning District No. 11.
.
4. DISCUSS ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION
Chair Bailey reviewed the time line planned for this issue by the Commission. He noted this part of the
planning process for organized refuse collection was to include discussion of a response by refuse
collection haulers. To date, no responses had been received from any refuse collection haulers, thus,
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 5, 2002
Page 4 of 5
making this task quite difficult. He viewed the lack of comment as ambivalence on the part of the refuse
collection haulers, and questioned the Commission for potential alternatives.
Commissioner White stated she had briefly summarized the findings of the City-wide survey regarding
this matter, finding the general opinion of people surveyed indicated organized refuse collection to be an
issue of little concern. She also noted there were respondents that held particularly strong opinions
regarding organized collection, but overall residents were equally in favor and against organized refuse
collection.
Commissioner Gagne commented one issue of concern was that heavy refuse collection trucks were
traversing the City streets on a daily basis. He suggested the alternative that refuse collection be
scheduled on the same day throughout the City to mitigate this issue. He stated people could then
continue to choose the refuse collection hauler that most adequately suited their needs. ill addition, he
suggested smaller trucks be used to collect refuse with a neighborhood, and various options for awarding
contracts for refuse collection within designated areas of the City.
Chair Bailey stated he did not think enough information had been gathered with regard to the opinions of
the refuse collection haulers. He suggested the haulers be contacted through a letter and invited to
specifically respond to this issue in a Study Session Meeting in April of this year. He also noted one of
the original issues considered when studying this matter was how best for the residents to save money.
However, this matter had been expanded to include issues of road damage and aesthetics as well as cost
savings and service for City residents.
Commissioner Borkon also suggested contacting the other cities in the Lake Minnetonka area to gather
information regarding practices being utilized in those cities regarding organized refuse collection.
Chair Bailey reviewed the State statutes governing this process, and Director Nielsen stated a plan of
action for addressing this matter prior to a Study Session Meeting of the Planning Commission in April,
2002.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There was no one present wishing to address matters from the floor this evening.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen reviewed the proposed draft Agenda for the February 19, 2002, Planning Commission
Meeting. He noted this meeting would take place at the South Shore Community Senior Center at 7 :00
P.M. and would have an Agenda including a Public Hearing regarding a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment as well as issues pertaining to Rezoning, a Preliminary and Final Plat review, a Hardcover
Variance request, and a Site Plan review for the Shorewood Village Shopping Center, 23680 Highway 7.
He also explained a recent ruling by the Attorney General's office indicated an ordinance amendment
would need to be acted upon to make sure the City's ordinances were consistent with State standards in
the future.
Commissioner White departed the meeting at 8:47 P.M.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 5, 2002
Page 5 of5
7. REPORTS
A. Liaison to Council
Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the January 29, 2002,
Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
B. Liaison to LCEC
Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the Land Conservation and
Environment Committee meeting of January 29,2002, (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
C. Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC)
Commissioner Pisula indicated an interest in attending the monthly luncheon for SLUC scheduled later
this month.
D. Other
Director Nielsen noted ideas were being considered for the Land Use Planning Workshop Session
scheduled for April of this year. The Commission was encouraged to submit any ideas of interest for this
session to Director Nielsen via email prior to the next meeting of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Gagne thanked Director Nielsen and Chair Bailey for the detailed historical compilation
pertaining to variance requests.
Council Liaison Turgeon made additional comment regarding issues discussed at the January 28, 2002,
Regular City Council Meeting.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 5,
2002, at 8:47 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD SOUTHSHORE COMMUNITY SENIOR CENTER
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2002 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon Gagne, Packard, Pisula, and White, Council
Liaison Turgeon, Engineer Brown, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Woodruff
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. February 5, 2002
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, Approving the February 5, 2002, Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes as amended, on Page 3, Paragraph 6, Sentences 1 and 2, change
"restaurant" to "coffee shop". Motion passed 6/0.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -COMPo PLAN AMENDMENTIREZONING/
PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT/HARDCOVER VARIANCE/SITE PLAN
REVIEW
Applicant: Shorewood Village Shopping Center
Location: 23680 Highway 7
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:00 P.M., noting the role ofthe Planning
Commission was to be a recommending body for planning actions appearing before the City
Council. In addition, he reviewed the purpose of a Public Hearing explaining it allowed
interested parties to hear the same information at one time. He then reviewed the procedures
utilized in a Public Hearing requesting all parties involved maintain courtesy, respect, and
brevity when discussing the case. He stated many people were questioning why a proposal on
this matter was again being considered after being denied last year. He explained CUB Foods,
Inc. had every right to make another proposal regarding this project, and it would be considered
on its own merits this evening.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant had submitted a request heard before the Planning
Commission last year. The Planning Commission denied the request, and the applicant chose to
withdraw the application prior to the request being presented to the City Council. Then, in
November oflast year, representatives of the Shorewood Village Shopping Center, located at
2380 Highway 7, presented a preapplication to Council for a Comprehensive Plan amendment
for 0.76-acre parcel of residential property abutting the existing shopping center site. The
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 19,2002
Page 2 oflO
.
request for amendment was to change the land use designation from "Low to Medium
Residential" to "Commercial", in order for the property to be used to expand the existing center
with a CUB Foods grocery store. He also noted the applicant had made changes to the proposed
plan since the preapplication meeting as anticipated.
As part of the process, the applicant had applied for a formal Comprehensive Plan amendment as
well as the necessary zoning requests to proceed with the project, including the following:
. Rezoning of approximately .76 acres of residential property to General Commercial
. Preliminary and Final Plat
. Vacation of a portion of Maple Street
. Conditional Use Permit for impervious surface in excess of 66 percent
. Variance for impervious surface in excess of75 percent
. Conditional Use Permit for excavation over 400 cu. yards and fill over 100 cu. yards
. Conditional Use Permit for multiple signage
.
In addition to the changes made by the applicant, there were changes made by Council that
would impact the consideration of this request as well. He explained the City had adopted three
new ordinances regarding limitations on impervious surface outside the Shoreland district,
revised landscaping standards, and limitations on business hours. Further, he anticipated the City
would be taking action amending its Zoning Code to reflect the change in classification for Lake
Linden from lake to wetland. In addition, he anticipated an amendment would be considered in
the near future limiting voting regulations to Super Majority in certain zoning issues such as
changing zoning designations from "Residential" to "Commercial".
Director Nielsen then explained there were many areas of concern in the preapplication stage for
this project. While the applicant had resolved certain issues, there still remained areas of
concern regarding drainage, traffic/circulation, landscaping and buffering, hours of operation,
impervious surface requirements, architectural character, preliminary/final plat, and
fill/excavation issues.
With regard to drainage, the applicant proposed an underground storage system. While this
allowed for additional needed parking spaces and would possibly control the rate of runoff
leaving the site, it was not expected to treat storm water runoff.
.
Regarding traffic and circulation, the City's engineering consultants had analyzed the traffic
study and circulation system proposed by the applicant. Findings concluded the number of trips
generated by the proposed development on Lake Linden/Y ellowstone/Country Club would be
somewhat higher than if the property were used simply for the expansion of the shopping center.
However, it was projected to be less than the current volume oftraffic on those streets due to the
proposed improvements at the County Road 19/Country Club Road intersection. He then
clarified a common misconception regarding the traffic reduction from the County Road 19
project. He explained some people held the assumption the total volume of traffic on Lake
Linden/Y ellowstone/Country Club would be cut in half once the new intersection was
completed. However, City engineers emphasized the number of non-local trips that shortcut
from County Road 19 to Highway 7 would be reduced by half. The number of non-local trips
was currently estimated to be approximately 40 percent of the total.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 19, 2002
Page 3 of 10
He also noted the applicant had agreed to the recommended change by the City Engineer that the
proposed main entry for the site be moved to the west, to reduce confusion at the Highway 7/41
intersection. Also, the easterly access from Lake Linden to the site had been revised to a right-in
only to discourage traffic from the north and maintain distance from the Lake Linden
neighborhood. He also recommended tying development approval to the possible construction
of a trail or sidewalk along Lake Linden Drive.
Regarding buffering to residential areas through the use of landscaping, Director Nielsen
explained the applicant proposed installing large plant materials, including several 12 to 14 foot
spruce trees in the area where existing buffer would be most disturbed. Although the current
vegetation was effective screening, it was of poor quality. While the proposed landscaping
would result in a higher quality buffer in time, it would need time to establish itself thereby
representing a change from what currently existed in that area. The applicant also proposed
placing numerous trees off-site on neighboring residential properties as further enhancement to
the area. Director Nielsen also noted the landscaping plan conflicted with the grading plan
requiring further remedy. As such, he recommended the applicant provide a detailed tree
inventory and a detailed landscape plan prepared and signed by a registered landscape architect
showing the relationship of grading to landscaping. He further noted the applicant plans
complied with the City's new ordinance that required 10 percent of the parking lot area be
landscaped.
When considering drainage on the site, Director Nielsen explained, it was also important to
consider the impact of the drainage system on the proposed landscape plan. Instead of a raised
berm at the perimeter of the parking areas to screen out or soften the view, the applicant
proposed a depressed swale intended to catch and filter storm water runoff from the parking lot.
He noted this would make it quite difficult to screen these parking areas also due in part to little
evergreen vegetation proposed around the perimeter of the parking lot.
He also explained the filtering function of the swale area raised significant concern relative to
maintenance. Assuming vegetation could be planted that was tolerant of salts and oils contained
in parking lot runoff, filters would need to be cleaned periodically, presenting the possibility the
swale would need to be dredged as a result. The applicant stated sedimentation could be
controlled and minimized by careful design and aggressive maintenance. Because of the
difficulty of these tasks, Director Nielsen recommended a detailed maintenance plans be
submitted for the project as well. Further, he recommended the detailed landscaping and
maintenance plans be incorporated into the development contract between the City and the
applicant to guarantee the agreed upon maintenance would be completed in a timely manner.
Director Nielsen then explained the City's new ordinance regulating the activities, such as
loading and lighting, of businesses open between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. He also
explained while Lake Linden would now be considered a wetland, a new City ordinance had
taken effect regarding the impervious surface restrictions for non-shoreland properties.
Commercial developments would be allowed a 66% maximum amount of impervious surface to
be exceeded by obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. In order to have up to 75% impervious
surface in a commercial development, a plan for treatment of storm water runoff must be
provided. As the applicant had calculated the necessary number of parking spaces utilizing
square footage of the common area of the shopping center, Director Nielsen recommended
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 19, 2002
Page 4 oflO
verification of the square footage found in the current floor plan for the center and a calculation
for resulting hardcover reduction so resolution could be attained in this issue.
While the applicant's architect had attempted to break up the fayade ofthe proposed grocery
store by the changing the height and depth of the front of the building, Director Nielsen
recommended the use of a darker brick to the top of the fayade to further enhance the treatment.
He also noted inadequate information had been submitted regarding consideration of the
preliminary and final plat request. Further, the City requested estimates of the amount of
material to be hauled onto and off of the site. All construction traffic should enter the site from
Highway 7, load limits should be imposed on Lake Linden/Y ellowstone/Country Club Road, and
hours of construction should all be subject to approval by the City Council.
Due to the unresolved issues related to drainage, landscaping, and the necessity of rearranging
the entrance to the site, Director Nielsen explained, Staff recommended continuing this matter to
the March 19,2002, Planning Commission Meeting.
Engineer Brown next introduced Chuck Rickart, and Steve Gurney, both ofWSB and
Associates, the City's engineering consultants' firm. He explained Mr. Rickart was asked to
evaluate the traffic study related to this project, and Mr. Gurney was similarly asked to evaluate
and comment upon the proposed storm water calculations coming from the project.
Mr. Rickart noted the traffic study submitted in this proposal to be more comprehensive and
detailed than in other proposals, however, there were areas of concern remaining after revision.
With regard to the access and planning for the site, he commented it would be prudent to relocate
the entrance driveway further to the west on Lake Linden Drive in effort to minimize confusion
for drivers when entering the area from the Highway7 and 41 intersection. With regard to the
layout of the right-in only entrance to the site, Mr. Rickart recommended this entrance be signed
for truck traffic only and the access be redesigned to better prevent southbound traffic from using
this access. He also explained the trip generation study submitted by the applicant should have
included a one-third reduction in trips to the store rather than the one-half reduction that was
utilized through comparison with the Crystal, Minnesota, CUB Foods store. In addition, he
recommended a capacity analysis be completed to include the overall impact to the Highway 7
and 41 intersection. He also stated an increase in vehicular use of7 to 12 percent per day on
collector streets near the site would be realized as part ofthis project.
Mr. Gurney also reviewed the storm water runoff calculations and plans for the site. In
summary, he found there were concerns relating to water treatment for the site as required by the
City's Stormwater Management Plan. He recommended computations be submitted for review.
In addition, he stated design and maintenance issues should be resolved prior to approval of the
infiltration area. He also questioned the effects of the stormwater downstream from the site to
ensure adequate rate control. Also, design issues regarding the durability and maintenance of the
proposed underground storage gallery must be addressed prior to approval. Finally, he
recommended this plan be submitted to Minnesota Department of Transportation for review as
the discharge for the site would impact the Highway 7 and 41 system, and he also stated the plan
should be submitted to the Department of Natural Resources for review as the storm water on
site was being diverted to a protected public water site.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 19,2002
Page 5 of 10
As a result of these conclusions, Engineer Brown was also recommended continuing this matter
until these issues could be resolved.
Chair Bailey then stated the applicant would now be allowed time to address the Commission as
part of the planning process.
Dave Sellergren, a land use attorney of Fredrikson and Byrne and representing the applicant,
introduced four other members of the applicant's design team. He also stated the team had tried
to work within he context created in the City's Comprehensive Plan. He asked the City to allow
the shopping center to be healthy by being allowed to relocate to the next lot with the same
acreage as had been acquired by the City for right-of-way purposes. He then introduced John
Uban, of Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc.
Mr. Uban stated many additional changes had been made to address community concerns and to
respond to suggestions from the City regarding this proposal. He stated the key new components
to the proposal were:
. A 50-foot buffer and setback were now maintained throughout the plan.
. The addition to the center had been reduced in size and parking increased to meeting the
City's regulations.
. An underground water retention and treatment system had been added, eliminating the
walled pond found in previous proposals.
. Architecture had been improved to compliment the character and present a more unified
approach through design thereby reflecting a village appearance.
. The proposed drive-through window on the pharmacy had been eliminated.
. The shopping center and addition had been reduced in overall size.
. Access from Lake Linden Drive had been redesigned using traffic calming techniques,
moving the entrance to the south and restricting truck traffic to and from the north.
. Impervious surface coverage had been reduced from 86% to 76.6%.
He next reviewed how the proposal aligned with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He also
reviewed options for the site, noting the shopping center site was buildable without the parcel to
the west, however, more of the existing center would need to be removed to accommodate this
plan, and he did not believe this to be a good idea. In addition, he stated landscaping was being
enhanced as part of the proposal by attempting to create a spruce forest around the site and
promote an arbor culture for the area. He also explained consideration was being given to
revising the access design and relocating the front entrance to the site. He then introduced Fred
Dock, of Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
Mr. Dock presented information pertaining to the traffic study for the area surrounding the
Shorewood Village Shopping Center. He briefly explained his methodologies of analysis and his
findings, noting there was currently a level of service rated at "C" for the Highways 7 and 41
intersection. He noted this rating would not be compromised as a result of the proposed
redevelopment for the property. In addition, he stated the daily traffic volumes on Lake
Linden/Y ellowstone/Country Club Drive were anticipated to increase by 7 to 12 percent. He
stated all increases in traffic would be relative to the magnitude of change to other roadways in
the area.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 19, 2002
Page 6 of 10
.
Next, Kathy Anderson, architect from Korsunsky, Krank, and Erickson (KKE) Architects, Inc.,
stated this proposal was a unique and exciting opportunity for the community. She explained
significant changes had been made to the exterior treatment of this CUB Foods Store in effort to
provide scale and village character. She specifically noted the variety of building materials and
colors being utilized in addition to a covered pedestrian walkway, metal canopies and masonry
utilized to unify the entire mall area. In addition she noted a significant amount of storefront
glass and corner forms had been added to further enhance the proposed fac;ade.
Bill Boyer, of CUB Foods, then described the layout ofthe proposed store, noting it would be
open 24 hours and operated under the CUB Foods corporate umbrella of ownership. He
described the layout of the store as "new generation," noting the intent to provide an upscale
shopping experience while maintaining the cost of product. He also stated the store layout was
designed to provide more convenience for the customer and provide organic food choices. He
stated the design team had made every attempt to respond to issues heard in the past, and he
looked forward to seeing the CUB Foods Store be a contributing member of the City of
Shorewood.
.
Mr. Sellergren explained the proposal presented for consideration this evening worked best for
the site and the community. In addition, the design team would continue to work with the City
and neighbors regarding issues raised pertaining to landscaping, stormwater management, and
the entrance to the Center as well as guidelines set forth by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District. He stated the best foot had been put forward regarding this proposal, and he thanked the
Commission for its time.
Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 8:45 P.M., and reconvened the meeting at 8:50 P.M.
Chair Bailey then asked if audience members would like to address the Commission regarding
this matter.
Dione Kallstrom, 6070 Lake Linden Drive, stated her main concern to be traffic issues on Lake
Linden Drive. She stated while there was expected to be a decrease in traffic as a result of other
roadway projects, she did not believe it would be reduced by 40-50 percent as stated in the traffic
studies. She also stated she thought it important this proposal was compatible with the
community and the Comprehensive Plan for the City. She stated she was concerned that a big
commercial development, if approved, would set precedent for other sites in the future. She also
stated she thought it important to fix one problem, such as the traffic issues already occurring on
Lake Linden Drive, before addressing the development.
.
Peggy Wilson, 24140 Yellowstone Trail, praised all parties involved this evening for doing a fine
job of explaining the proposal and issues pertaining to it. She noted three fatalities had occurred
at the Highway 7 and 41 intersection, and while she liked the proposal in terms of its beauty, she
was also concerned for citizens' safety. She also questioned why the County Road 19
intersection project couldn't be completed prior to consideration ofthis proposal, as it would
impact the traffic on collector streets in the area. She also stated she was concerned for the
safety of the younger generations of drivers trying to back out onto Lake Linden Drive.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 19,2002
Page 70flO
.
Chris Kallstrom, 6070 Lake Linden Drive, stated he did not think the City was addressing the
traffic issues on Lake Linden Drive. He thought current traffic levels were too high, and he
wondered about setting a precedent for changing residential land to commercial within the City.
He expressed his desire for residential lots to stay residentially zoned.
Bob Rau, 23480 Yellowstone Trail, stated his concern for traffic in the area of Lake Linden
Drive and Yellowstone Trail. In addition, he stated not enough had been done regarding the
traffic in that area, and he suggested closing Country Club Road to appease residents in the area.
In addition, he stated he was concerned latitude was being given to a large commercial
development that would not be given to a small business owner.
Ed Sheridan, 6150 Club Valley Road, expressed his opinion that while the CUB Foods Store had
changed its appearance, it was still a "box". He was also concerned about setting precedents in
the City. He commented attractive retail would only lure more attractive retail. He also
questioned why CUB Foods was still presenting proposals when residents of the area had
specifically stated it was not wanted in the community. He also questioned what purpose City
officials served if not to represent the community in this matter.
.
Henry Miles, 24035 Mary Lake Trail, stated honesty should also be a part of a Public Hearing.
He reviewed the changes the CUB Foods design team had made and noted little had changed
from previous proposals. In addition, he stated he did not believe a moratorium on this matter
had been considered, and he was concerned the CUB Foods design team had not listened to
Shorewood residents in this matter.
Mike Adams, 24235 Mary Lake Trail, stated he had not heard many new ideas this evening. He
stated traffic was still an issue and any increase in traffic was too much. He did not think the
entry monuments planned for the Lake Linden neighborhood entrance, nor the right-in only truck
entrance proposed would help assuage the situation at all. He stated Shorewood had a reputation
for being restrictive, and he was concerned residents were being asked to suit the needs of a
corporation when he believed the opposite should be the case.
Mark Stratman, 24275 Yellowstone Trail, stated he was neither for nor against the proposal. He
praised the past actions of city government that allowed residents to reside in a unique
community. He stated to amend the requirements would be unwise. He also expressed concern
for water usage being utilized by CUB Foods, as well as being labeled a "consumer" by someone
that would be a "neighbor." In summary, he explained that anyone wanting to develop land in
the City should need to abide by the regulations already in place without variance.
.
Denise Koehnen, 6095 Lake Linden Drive, thanked everyone for fine presentations this evening.
She stated she did not think enough had been done by the City to examine issues relating to
traffic and safety in the area. She stated she thought this CUB Foods store design was better in
terms of fit within the community. Also, she encouraged the Commission to consider the need to
grow the City's tax base. She stated she appreciated CUB's efforts and would like to have a
CUB Foods store in the neighborhood.
Karen Boynton, 6155 Riviera Lane, stated she thought it was time to tell corporations what was
wanted by cities versus the corporations asking residents to accommodate them. In addition, she
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 19, 2002
Page 8 of 10
.
requested the Commission consider continuing this matter until after the Community Visioning
Process meeting on Thursday, February 21,2002.
Chair Bailey then closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:20 P.M.
Chair Bailey asked Director Nielsen to summarize outstanding areas of concern at this time.
Director Nielsen stated issues regarding the entrance to the site designated on the site plan,
drainage, landscaping, concern for issues in the traffic study, compliance with the impervious
surface ordinance, and request for a Conditional Use Permit for multiple signage were all still
areas requiring resolution.
Commissioner Borkon questioned Engineer Brown about the potential impact on residential
wells related to water usage by the proposed CUB Foods store. Engineer Brown responded he
believed the impact of the store would be a large amount of water drawn from this aquifer.
However, he noted the concern to be how fast that water would be drawn. He explained he
understood a large amount of water would be drawn but at the same rate as what was currently
being drawn from the aquifer. He thought there would be longer runs on the pump system due to
onsite storage. He stated he did not believe there would be any impact to the neighboring
residential area provided the water was drawn at the same rate as was currently being drawn.
Commissioner Gagne stated he was concerned for the traffic on Lake Linden Drive as well as the
safety of residents navigating the Highway 7 and 41 intersection.
. Commissioner White questioned how emergency vehicles would be expected to enter the
proposed site, as she was concerned for efficiency of movement and circulation on site.
Engineer Brown stated emergency vehicles would most likely be entering from the main
entrance; however, possibilities exist for access through other routes.
Commissioner Packard questioned whether there was room on site for snow storage. Director
Nielsen explained it would need to be hauled off site, as there was not space available.
Commissioner Pisula questioned where the proposed store traffic would be generated. He
questioned the number and origin of people potentially traveling from the north on the collector
streets to get to the proposed store. He suggested data be provided to the Commission regarding
this issue so thoughtful consideration could be given to accommodating people from other
communities on the City's roadways.
Mary McGlinch, Real Estate Manager for Supervalu, briefly explained the market analysis
utilized in the trade area study, noting more specific information pertaining to this issue could be
made available at the next meeting.
.
Stan Taube, owner ofthe Shorewood Village Shopping Center, stated if the intent of the
Commission was only to support projects benefiting Shorewood residents, then most likely this
project would not be supported, as the bulk of the people coming to the store would not be
coming from the north. Commissioner Pisula asked Mr. Taube to keep in mind the people to the
north of the Center would be bearing the brunt of the traffic issues with the Center.
Commissioner Pisula also stated while the property owners near the Center knew they were
purchasing land near a commercial development, it was also important for the Center to
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 19, 2002
Page 9 of 10
.
remember it purchased commercial land near a residential area. Mr. Taube stated the same
traffic issues would be of concern whether CUB Foods built a store on this site or across
Highway 7 as a second choice. The store would still serve people from other communities.
Commissioner Borkon questioned whether there would be anyway to be more accurate regarding
proposed traffic levels in the area. Engineer Brown responded a great deal was being done to
address traffic concerns on Lake Linden Drive. He stated remedy of the traffic issues on Lake
Linden Drive was part of the Comprehensive Plan, and the City was attempting to reduce traffic
by putting through various improvement proj ects not yet realized. He stated to reduce traffic by
some amount would be beneficial, and regardless of the hurdles placed before drivers on those
streets, people would still use the roadway to get to their destination. He also commented the
CUB Foods proposal needed to stand on its own merits, and there would be an increase in traffic
on city roadways with the CUB Foods proposal.
Commissioner Packard stated there were many things to consider; noting the proposed entrance
at Highway 7 and 41 was of great concern to her. Engineer Brown commented Staff felt very
strongly that trying to move the entrance would be the best idea as a "tee" intersection would
operate far more efficiently than what was there currently.
.
Commissioner White questioned the amount of phosphorus on impervious surface areas. Mr.
Gurney explained certain amounts of phosphorus were contained in the atmosphere. While it
was not equivalent to a well-fertilized lawn, there would be some present. In addition, Engineer
Brown stated, landscaping would be prevalent in the area with the use of a sprinkler and lawn
maintenance plan.
Chair Bailey questioned whether a lighting plan had been submitted. Director Nielsen responded
affirmatively and noted compliance would need to be maintained. Chair Bailey also asked
Engineering staff to comment on the effectiveness on a bioswale. Mr. Gurney responded the key
to a properly functioning bioswale system was in the maintenance. He noted this form of
drainage was becoming more prevalent as many watershed districts were encouraging the use of
more natural systems of filtration. Engineer Brown stated while a bioswale seemed a rather
ingenious idea as a form of filtration; there were many competing agendas in this instance. He
cited the phosphorus and grit passing through the filter as well as the necessary elements of
survival of the landscaping, combined with road chemicals and grit from roadway usage.
Director Nielsen also commented the key to utilizing a bioswale was aggressive maintenance
with frequent cleaning, and he thought it important to guarantee in some way this would be
accomplished. Mr. Uban stated diagrams related to the underground drainage system, traffic
generated within certain trade areas, and bioswale diagrams could be presented at the next
meeting.
.
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for a Comprehensive. Plan
Amendment/Rezoning / Preliminary and Final Plat/Hardcover Variance /Site Plan Review
to March 19,2002, for Shorewood Village Shopping Center, 23680 Highway 7. Motion
passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 10:00 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 10:03 P.M.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
February 19, 2002
Page 10 of 10
2.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
3. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there would be Public Hearings regarding two requests for Conditional
Use Permits, a request for Variance, review of a Preliminary Plat, as well as an amendment to the
Zoning Code and an amendment to the Shore land regulations pertaining to the Lake Linden
classification slated for the Agenda of the Wednesday, March 6, 2002, Planning Commission
Meeting.
4. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
Commissioner Pisula reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 11, 2002,
Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Liaison to LCEC
As Commissioner Woodruff was absent at this meeting, there was nothing to report at this time.
SLUC
Director Nielsen stated the next topic of discussion at the SLUC Meeting would be on
inclusionary housing.
Other
The Commission then briefly reviewed procedures to be used in the March 19,2002, Planning
Commission Meeting.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the February 19, 2002, Planning Commission
Meeting at 10:25 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, 6 MARCH 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Pisula, White, and Woodruff; Council
Liaison Turgeon; Engineer Brown; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Gagne and Packard
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. February 19, 2002
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, approving the February 19, 2002, Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 1, Item 1, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1, change
"withdrawn a previously denied request last year." to "submitted a request heard before
the Planning Commission last year. The Planning Commission denied the request, and the
applicant chose to withdraw the application prior to the request being presented to the City
Council", and on Page 2, Paragraph 2, Sentence 4, change "such as this one" to "such as
changing zoning designations from 'Residential' to 'Commercial.' ", and on Page 4,
Paragraph 4, Sentence 4 omit the word "incorrect", and on Page 7, Paragraph 3, Sentence
2, change "reiterated" to "reviewed", and Page 9, Paragraph 4, Sentence 6, change "sited"
to "cited." Motion passed 4/0/1, with Commissioner Woodruff abstaining due to absence at
that meeting.
1. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PARKING LOT
Applicant: Lake Fellowship Unitarian Church
Location: 24575 Glen Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:00 P.M. He reviewed the procedures utilized in a
Public Hearing, noting matters recommended for approval this evening would be placed on the
March 25, 2002, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda.
Director Nielsen explained this request had been continued from a Planning Commission
Meeting held January 15, 2002. He stated he had met with Mr. Scott Gauer, of Lake Fellowship
Unitarian Church, in the past two weeks. Mr. Gauer had explained the Church Fellowship Board
would like to have soil tests done on the property prior to making a decision to proceed with an
application for variance. As a result, Director Nielsen recommended continuing the Public
Hearing for 90 days with the understanding that the soil test be ordered in early May of this year
thus, allowing application for a variance to be made in June ifneed be.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2002
Page 2 of 8
. Seeing no one present in the audience wishing to address this matter, Chair Bailey opened and
closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 11 P.M.
Woodruff moved, White seconded, recommending application for a variance, if needed, be
made by June 4, 2002, and continuing the Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit to
the first Planning Commission Meeting in July, 2002, for the Lake Fellowship Unitarian
Church, 24575 Glen Road. Motion passed 5/0.
2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - OAK VIEW ESTATES
Applicant: Z B Construction, Inc.
Location: 6090 Chaska Road
Director Nielsen explained the applicant for the property located at 6090 Chaska Road had
submitted a preliminary plat. He explained a new plat would be presented at a later date, and the
applicant was not present this evening due to conflicting commitments. He went on to explain
the applicant proposed subdividing the property into three twinhome lots, with six units total for
the site.
.
The property was zoned Single and Two-Family Residential and contained 2.52 acres of land. A
single family home and two outbuildings currently occupy the site. The applicant proposed
building three two-family buildings, each with its own unit lot. The project would be served by
a cul-de-sac street, approximately 240 feet in length. Sanitary sewer was available to the
property, but water would be supplied by individual wells.
Director Nielsen then explained there were concerns regarding issues of land use and zoning,
subdivision requirements, and Tree Preservation and Reforestation. With regard to land use and
zoning, he explained certain lots were not in compliance with the City's minimum lot size
requirements. In addition, corrections needed to be made regarding building setbacks for the
project. With regard to the City's subdivision requirements, he noted significant concern for the
proposed street design. While the proposed street complied with right-of-way width and cul-de-
sac diameters prescribed by Code, placement of the street needed further consideration. He then
reviewed other necessary criteria and concerns for the City's subdivision requirements for this
plat. In addition, further recommendations were made regarding tree preservation and
reforestation, as a plan had not yet been submitted addressing these areas of concern. As a result
of lack of resolution regarding these numerous concerns, Director Nielsen recommended
continuing this matter for 30 days, thus allowing the applicant to revise the plat to address these
Issues.
.
Engineer Brown also explained his concerns regarding right-of-way, roadways and easements;
watermain and sanitary sewer service; as well as proposed plans for grading and drainage as part
of the preliminary plat submitted by the applicant. Specifically, he recommended the plat be
revised to indicate the correct right-of-way designations for Chaska Road and Trunk Highway
41. Also, he recommended the developer and Professional Engineer should work with City Staff
to resolve the alignment issues of the proposed cul-de-sac and Trunk Highway 41 as part of the
preliminary plat process. House pad elevations and rear lot areas should be designed to maintain
a longitudinal slope at a minimum of 2.0 percent. In addition, all easements on the plats should
be delineated with regard to the type and dimension of the easement. Lastly, the typical section
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2002
Page 3 of 8
. for the roadway should be modified in accordance with requirements set forth by City Staff.
Engineer Brown also supported Director Nielsen's recommendation to continue this matter to the
April 2, Planning. Commission Meeting.
Elizabeth Bergland, 6125 Chaska Road, stated she was unsure of the plans for the property but
noted concern for maintaining property values in her neighborhood as well as issues of safety
regarding this project. She also noted concern for the treed area between the frontage road and
Chaska Road. Director Nielsen explained the area with trees was to remain intact, as that parcel
had been conveyed to the City in the past.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M.
Commissioner Borkon stated she also had many questions and concerns with the preliminary plat
for this project. Commissioner Woodruff agreed, noting there were many variables contingent
on new design.
.
Ms. Bergland stated she was concerned for the cut-through traffic from Highway 7 to Highway
41, and the high rates of speed associated with the increased volume on the roadway. Director
Nielsen explained this project would increase volume on these roadways. Ms. Bergland
questioned what could be done by the City to address her concerns. Director Nielsen explained a
variety of options that could potentially reduce the speed in that area, and stated he would
explore increased patrol opportunities with the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department for
the roadway.
Chair Bailey stated the planning process being utilized in this case could also help, in terms of
design, to minimize concerns heard from residents and staff this evening. He also noted the
property was zoned for Single and Two-Family Residential use so it would be likely that it
would be developed accordingly at some point in the future.
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for Preliminary Plat
Review to the April 2, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting for Z B Construction, Inc.,
6090 Chaska Road. Motion passed 5/0.
3. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Jeffrey Johnson
Location: 5830 Club Lane
.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant owned the property at 5830 Club Lane and had
requested a 37- foot front yard setback variance to build a three-car garage on the east end of the
property. He further explained the property was zoned Single-Family Residential, was occupied
by the applicant's. house and a small shed. The property was bounded on the west and south by
the Minnetonka Country Club golf course, on the east by Club Lane, and on the north by Single-
Family Residential zoning areas. The proposed garage measured 24' x 32' and contained 744
square feet of area.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2002
Page 4 of 8
. Director Nielsen then reviewed the applicant's request with regard to necessary criteria for
approval of a variance. He explained the applicant was required to demonstrate hardship,
meaning that he or she would be unable to make reasonable use of their property without an
exception to the law. He noted the applicant could build a garage within the buildable area of the
lot, and noted two possible options for placement on the property that would be in compliance
with City Code recommendations. He also noted the proposed garage provided no room for an
adequate turn-around. As a result of these issues, he explained the variance was not
recommended.
Jeff Johnson, owner of the property, was in attendance and provided the Commission with
photos related to his plans for the proposed garage. He stated he and his family had purchased
their property in 1988. The house had been built in 1900, and he had removed the existing barn
as it had deteriorated, and the driveway was placed immediately in front of the house. He
explained he had removed the barn, brought in 300 feet of fill, and added 2500 square feet to the
house over time. He stated the house was situated immediately adjacent to the golf course with
views of the course in three directions. He also commented Club Lane was a very narrow road,
with people forced to turn around in his driveway. As a result, landscaping and trees had been
removed on his property when people had utilized the driveway for turning around on Club
Lane.
.
He stated he knew there would be difficulties in placing a garage on the property but believed
not having a garage constituted a hardship. He stated no other property owners were objecting to
the proposed placement of the garage on the lot, and he could see no reason why the variance
should not be allowed. With regard to Director Nielsen's options for placement of the garage, he
explained the lot was small and the garage would be quite close to the house.
Mike Clausen, 26165 Birch Bluff Road, asked for clarification regarding the required setback
from the road. Director Nielsen stated the setback was designated at 50 feet, and the current
proposed setback was 12 feet.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion ofthe Public Hearing at 7:53 P.M.
Commissioner Pisula stated he believed this to be a difficult issue for consideration, as he
understood the applicant's point of view, and yet he believed it was the task of the Planning
Commission to apply the law and make a recommendation to the Council. He was sympathetic
to the applicant's desire for a view, and yet he was concerned for setting a precedent.
Mr. Johnson stated his lot provided a very unique situation in that the lot was small and was
situated on a dead end street. There were no other parties objecting to his plan, and the
Minnetonka Country Club had issued a letter of support for his proposed plans for a garage.
.
Deb Johnson, owner of the property, stated the site where the previously existing barn had been
located posed liability issues for the golf course, and neighbors views would suffer as a result of
utilizing that same placement for the proposed garage. She also questioned the age of the laws
that were being applied to a house that was one hundred years old when other structures in her
neighborhood were placed far closer to the road than the proposed garage.
-oOIIIIIIIIIIII
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2002
Page 5 of 8
Commissioner Woodruff stated she agreed with Commissioner Pisula in that this was a difficult
issue to address. She agreed not having a garage constituted a hardship for the applicant,
however, she also noted a garage could be placed on the property and still maintain the law. She
suggested the applicant consider other options for placement of the garage.
Commissioner Borkon questioned whether a two-car garage could be built on the property and
the law maintained. Mr. Johnson responded it could but would not provide a solution for the
variance issue. She stated she felt conflicted as she thought the nonconforming lot and lack of a
garage constituted hardship in this case. Although the applicants had purchased the house and
lot knowingly, alternatives posed could potentially adversely impact the value of their property.
Pisula moved, Woodruff seconded, recommending denial of a Request for Variance for Jeff
Johnson, 5830 Club Lane.
Commissioner Borkon stated she wished for further discussion of this matter.
Chair Bailey stated he recognized the lack of a garage would constitute a hardship and resale
values could be affected in the future due to possible options for placement of the garage.
However, he stated there were areas on the lot where the garage could be placed without the need
for a variance. In addition, aesthetics and the opinions of the neighbors, while providing
valuable information, could not be a reason to grant a variance.
Commissioner Borkon stated she still believed the Commission was creating a new hardship by
recommending building the garage elsewhere on the property. She questioned what other
options were available to the applicant regarding the planning process.
Director Nielsen stated one option was for the applicant to consider withdrawing the request
prior to being placed on the City Council Agenda for consideration of this matter.
Motion passed 5/0.
4. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR TWO HOUSES TEMPORARILY ON
ONE LOT AND LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT
Applicant: Michael Clausen
Location: 26165 Birch Bluff Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8: 15 P.M. Director Nielsen explained the applicant
owned the property at 26165 Birch Bluff Road and had applied for a lot line rearrangement
allowing him to swap property with his neighbor, Bill Schenkel, to the west at 26175 Birch Bluff
Road. He also had requested a Conditional Use Permit that would allow him to keep the existing
home on the property while he built a new home on the same lot. Upon completion of the new
house, the existing house would be demolished.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2002
Page 6of8
. Both of the subject properties were zoned Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland. The southerly
62 feet of the Schenkel lot would be conveyed to Clausen. Clausen would then convey a 28- foot
strip of land to Schenkel. With regard to the lot line rearrangement, Director Nielsen explained
the proposed subdivision and combination of the property would result in the Schenkel property
complying with the minimum lot area for the zoning district. It would also widen the lot to
within three feet of the minimum lot width requirement. These improvements would also allow
Mr. Schenkel to expand his house to the east at some future date. With regard to the request for
Conditional Use Permit, Director Nielsen explained the tree preservation plan for the property,
noting care would have to be taken during construction and demolition of the houses to protect
one large maple tree located between the two structures. In addition, he explained the Zoning
Code allowed the existing house to remain in place for six months from the date the building
permit was issued. He noted the proposed house complied in all respects with the setback
requirements for the zoning district, and the applicant needed to provide hardcover calculations
maintaining a site maximum of 25 percent.
Mike Clausen, owner of the property, was in attendance and noted concern for the six month
time limit regarding the teardown of the existing house should the new house not yet be finished.
Jennifer Clausen, property owner, stated she and her husband would be building the new house,
and she was also concerned for the six-month deadline regarding the removal of the existing
house. Chair Bailey stated an extension could be granted if need be, however, he urged Mr.
Clausen not to take the time limit lightly.
. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:26 P.M.
Director Nielsen provided clarification to members of the Commission regarding the exact
widths of the subject lots.
Borkon moved, White seconded, recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit,
subject to staff recommendations, for Michael Clausen, 26165 Birch Bluff Road. Motion
passed 5/0.
5. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT -
VOTING REQUIREMENTS ON ZONING ACTION
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:28 P.M. Director Nielsen explained the history
regarding the changes in laws for certain zoning actions. He noted the zoning code amendment
would amend the City Zoning Code to comply with new voting requirements. He explained a
simply majority would suffice in all zoning actions except in changing zoning designations of
properties from Residential to Commercial. He then detailed specific wording changes to the
Zoning Code for the Commission.
As there was no one present in the audience wishing to address this matter, Chair Bailey opened
and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:35 P.M.
.
Chair Bailey stated the Attorney General's interpretation of the state statute with respect to the
voting requirements, stunned him, noting the language in the statute seemed permissive.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2002
Page 7 of 8
. Pisula moved, Woodruff seconded, recommending approval of a Zoning Code Amendment
for Voting Requirements on Zoning Actions. Motion passed 4/0/1, with Bailey abstaining.
6. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SHORELAND REGULATIONS AMENDMENT -
LAKE LINDEN CLASSIFICATION
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:40 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained an amendment was being considered to the City's Shoreland
Regulations because the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had inadvertently classified
Lake Linden as a lake in the 1970's. The error had recently been corrected by the DNR, and as a
result, was now being correctly classified as a wetland and would be protected as such. The
proposed amendment would reflect this change in the City's regulations as well.
Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public Testimony portion ofthe Public Hearing at 8:43 P.M.,
as there was no one present wishing to comment on this matter.
Woodruff moved, White seconded, recommending approval of the Shoreland Regulations
Amendment regarding the reclassification of Lake Linden as a wetland. Motion passed
5/0.
.
7.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen reviewed the proposed draft Agenda for the March 19, 2002, Planning
Commission Meeting. He noted this meeting would have an Agenda including a Public Hearing
regarding a Comprehensive Plan Amendment as well as issues pertaining to Rezoning, a
Preliminary and Final Plat review, a Hardcover Variance request, and a Site Plan review for the
Shorewood Village Shopping Center, 23680 Highway 7. He noted this matter had been
continued from the February 19, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting.
9. REPORTS
A. Liaison to Council
Commissioner Pisula reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 25,2002,
Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
B. Liaison to LCEC
.
Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 26,
2002, Land Conservation and Environment Committee Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of
that meeting).
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2002
Page 8 of8
C. SLUC
Director Nielsen stated he would report on this matter at the March 19, 2002, Planning
Commission Meeting.
D. Other
Director Nielsen stated there would be a Government Training Class for Public Officials on
April 27, 2002, regarding topics related to variances and the Non-Point Environmental
Management Organization (NEMO).
Commissioner White requested an update on the Community Visioning Project. Commissioner
Pisula explained he had attended the Community Visioning Project meeting on February 28,
2002, and found it to be very interesting in terms of how people view the entire South Lake
Minnetonka Community as a whole. He stated a variety of community residents were present
providing an interesting perspective regarding various issues related to the future growth and
planning for the City of Shorewood.
10.
ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of
March 6, 2002, at 9:30 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recordine: Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 19 MARCH 2002
SOUTHTHORE SENIOR CENTER
5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and
Woodruff; Council Liaison Turgeon; Engineer Brown; and Planning Director
Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. March 6, 2002
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, Approving the March 6, 2002, Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes as amended, on Page 5, Paragraph 6, Sentence 2, change "She
stated.....withdrawing the request," to "She questioned what other options were available
to the applicant regarding the planning process. Director Nielsen stated one option would
be that the applicant consider withdrawing the request, prior to being placed on the City
Council Agenda for consideration of this matter.", and on Page 6, Paragraph 8, change
"the language utilized..." to "the Attorney General's interpretation of the State statute,
with respect to the voting requirements, stunned him, noting the language in the statute
seemed permissive." Motion passed 5/0, with Gagne and Packard abstaining due to
absence at that meeting.
1. PUBLIC HEARING COMP PLAN AMENDMENT/REZONING/
PRELIMINARY&FINAL PLAT/HARDCOVER VARIANCE/SITE PLAN
REVIEW
Applicant: Shorewood Village Shopping Center, Inc.
Location: 23680 Highway 7
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing. He also explained this Public Hearing had been continued from the February 19,2002,
Planning Commission Meeting. He thanked all parties involved for continued patience, and he
encouraged all participants in the hearing to continue to utilize courtesy, brevity, and respect
throughout the evening.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
March 19, 2002
Page 2 of8
Director Nielsen explained the Commission had continued this Public Hearing from February 19,
2002, pending submission of additional information by the applicant. Representatives of CUB
Foods, Inc. had submitted revised plans and addendums to their original application. There were
five areas of concern remaining from the initial meeting including issues pertaining to traffic,
grading and drainage, landscaping, impervious surface, and architecture. He then went on to
explain how the applicant had addressed each of these issues as well as how they complied with
the City's requirements.
With regard to traffic, Director Nielsen explained there were concerns related to the calculations
provided by the applicant's traffic engineer for traffic projections for the area surrounding the
site. In addition, requested information regarding the origination of the traffic that would be
coming to the site from the north had been provided.
Grading and drainage from the site remained a concern. Substantial amounts of fill would need
to be utilized with grading over approximately 8.73 acres of the site. Any approval of the project
would also need to include control of truck traffic during construction and should be limited to
Highway 7. In addition, construction would be limited to hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.
weekdays and 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays. No work should be conducted on the site
on Sundays.
Engineer Brown explained, with regard to the traffic issues on site, that the proposed entrance
should be shifted to a location 350 feet west of the Trunk Highway (TH) 7 & 41 entrance. This
revised location would improve sight lines for motorists exiting the center, would provide the
opportunity to increase the number of parking stalls, and would minimize impact to the current
parking lot layout. He noted the presence of Mr. Chuck Rickart, a consultant for the City
specializing in traffic engineering, at this evening's meeting. Engineer Brown noted Mr. Rickart
had recommended a que analysis be conducted for this project, which would demonstrate how
the proposed entrance would affect all intersections near the entrance to the site.
With regard to the drainage on the site, Engineer Brown stated the issues of drainage had been
the toughest challenge throughout the application process for this project. Engineer Brown
explained the proposed plans included the use of a pipe gallery (underground storage) and
bioswale to treat water. Both of these methods were considered inadequate for the proposed
project. He stated there were unresolved issues related to the use of the underground pipe gallery
pertaining to treatment of stormwater runoff. He noted many details required as part of a
hydrologic review were not specified or were not equivalent to the volume of storage required
for such a project. In addition, Engineer Brown explained there were significant concerns
regarding the use of a bioswale on site as a means of filtration. He explained the maintenance
required for a bioswale was extensive and in this case was further complicated by being placed in
a public right-of-way as roadway sand and chemicals would migrate to the bioswale and act as
part of the pollutant load to the system. Engineer Brown stated approval for the proposed plan
could not move forward without resolution of these issues.
Mr. Chuck Rickart then provided in depth analysis of issues pertaining to the proposed driveway
access to the site as well as trip distribution. While additional traffic generated from the site
would not overwhelm the current roadways surrounding the site, he explained, it would be
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
March 19, 2002
Page 3 of8
.
important to verify this conclusion by also analyzing the queue lengths and operation of the
roadway surrounding the site.
Engineer Brown introduced Mr. Steve Gurney, professional engineer with a background in
hydrology and consultant with WSB and Associates. Mr. Gurney provided additional detailed
analysis of the hydrologiclhydraulic model for proposed conditions, erosion control, water
quality modeling results, as well as issues pertaining to grading, drainage, infiltration,
landscaping, and a draft maintenance and operations plan for the project.
Details from Mr. Rickart's and Mr. Gurney's reports can be found at City Hall in a
memorandum from Larry Brown to the Planning Commission, City Council, and City
Administrator, dated March 15, 2002, regarding Engineering File 00-12.
.
Chair Bailey questioned whether comments had been received from the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District (MCWD) regarding this project. Engineer Brown responded MCWD had
concerns regarding the proposed use of a bioswale for this site as the necessary frequent scraping
of the vegetative area would cause disruption as well as potential need for continued
reconstruction of the bioswale thereby diminishing its effectiveness. Director Nielsen stated he
was also concerned about the aggressive maintenance required for effectiveness of a bioswale
and requested strict maintenance of the bioswale be included in a development agreement. He
also suggested redesign of the system, such as elimination of the bioswale as a filter, may cut
back on the maintenance concerns for the project. He suggested a larger underground storage
system or an underground pond as options for easing the maintenance concerns related to the use
of a bioswale. He noted treatment issues could be addressed in this way, and traditional
landscaping be restored in the public right-of-way areas.
Director Nielsen then briefly reviewed concerns related to landscaping, hardcover, and
architecture for this project. Details from Director Nielsen's report can be found at City Hall in
a memorandum from Brad Nielsen to the Planning Commission and City Council, dated March
14,2002, regarding File No. 405 (02.01).
John Uban, of Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, representing the applicant, explained several
modifications had been made to the project since the February 19, 2002, Public Hearing. He
noted changes had been made to site and landscape plans, architectural design, drainage issues,
traffic issues relating to traffic generation north of the site as well as entry stacking near the
entrance to the site. He stated changes had been made in an effort to form blended solutions to
accomplish resolution for the site. With regard to snow storage on site, he stated a detailed
maintenance plan had been submitted, noting snow would only be stored on the side slopes of
the bioswale area and thus concern for compaction of snow in the bioswale would be averted. In
addition, he commented snow would be trucked off site in the event of a large snowstorm.
Kathy Anderson, a Principal with KKE Architects, explained changes made in the building
materials and design in an effort to provide a unique design for this proposed CUB Foods store.
.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
March 19, 2002
Page 4 of8
Wayne Sikora, of the Parsons Transportation Group representing the applicant, expressed his
appreciation for working with the City's consultants in a team format. He noted many of the
issues being dealt with were complex and required a team approach to resolution. With regard to
maintenance issues for the bioswale, he explained a maintenance plan could be implemented
with the understanding that modifications would most likely need to occur over time. He
explained one option considered in working with the consultants was to enlarge the underground
pipe gallery system and include filtration knowledge. He further explained the concerns with the
gallery were believed to be cost related, and he believed criteria could still be met in enlarging
that system.
Mary McGlinch, of Supervalu, Inc., explained the market analysis utilized III deducing
percentages of traffic that would potentially be accessing the proposed store.
Fred Dock, of Meyer, Mohaddes, & Associates, Inc., explained the traffic analysis prepared for
this evening. He stated the peak hour trip generation would increase by 20 percent, with no
interaction or stacking difficulty perceived at the intersection of Highways 7 and 41 as a result of
the proposed project.
Dave Sellergren, Attorney for the applicant, recommended the Commission reflect on the
purpose of the Comprehensive Plan as it related to this site. He stated the land use section of the
Comprehensive Plan noted this area required rezoning, and the Commission should be open to
consideration of expansion as a result. Further, he stated the site was losing the equivalent
amount of space through previous right-of-way acquisition as was being requested for expansion.
Levels of service were believed to maintained at all intersections, and the amount of traffic on
the collector streets in the area would not be overwhelmed by additional traffic from this
proposal. He recommended the Commission utilize these concepts as a decision foundation for
consideration of this matter.
Stan Taube, owner of the Shorewood Village Shopping Center, stated CUB Foods had
approached him approximately two years ago, as he was concerned about the longevity of the
Driskill's store on the site. He noted he was still dealing with the details of this matter two years
later. He stated he respected City staff and realized the difficulties residents had in supporting
this project. He realized a little more work needed to be completed on the drainage issues, and
he believed it was obvious his team was trying to work with the City in remedying the situation.
He noted this proposal included the smallest CUB Foods store in the Twin Cities as 10, 000
square feet had been removed from the Center and 66, 000 square feet were to be added. He
appreciated the Staff s help in accommodating his team and thanked the Commission and City
Staff for time, effort, and commitment to this matter.
Mr. Sellergren stated the 120-day continuation deadline would be waived.
Roger Leek, 5870 Minnetonka Drive, questioned the status of a number of issues related to the
future of the small business owners in the Center, loading of semi-trucks, water usage for the
site, stormwater runoff, and traffic on Lake Linden Drive from last year regarding this project.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
March 19, 2002
Page 5 of8
.
With no other persons wishing to address the Commission at this time, Chair Bailey closed the
Public Testimony portion ofthe Public Hearing and recessed the meeting at 8:25 P.M.
Chair Bailey reconvened the meeting at 8:40 P.M.
Commissioner Pisula provided an update for Mr. Leek regarding his issues of concern for the
project. Mr. Taube explained that should the current project proposal be approved, all tenants
would remain in the Center. Ms. McGlinch detailed the number of trucks and hours that would
deliveries would be made to the site. Director Nielsen reviewed the City's ordinance regarding
hours of operation for commercial businesses open between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00
A.M. Engineer Brown explained the impact the proposed water usage for the site would have on
the neighboring wells. He stated this project should not impact the surrounding wells as long as
the water was drawn at the same rate as was currently being drawn. No plans for drawing water
at a higher rate were being considered as part of this plan.
.
Commissioner White questioned the amount of fill necessary for excavation in order to enlarge
the proposed pipe gallery being proposed for drainage. She also questioned the effect this
excavation would have on parking for the site. Mr. Sikora explained the Center and businesses
would remain open during construction for the project. In addition, he did not anticipate any
parking problems for the other tenants in the Center during construction. Commissioner White
also questioned the process for installation of the pipe gallery as well as the size of the pipes and
required maintenance.
Commissioner Pisula questioned if the pipe gallery system for drainage had been installed in any
locations with similar climate. Mr. Sikora responded affirmatively and stated the data analysis
regarding removal of phosphorus would be made available at a later meeting.
Commissioner Borkon stated she liked the concept of utilizing a bioswale, but found the
maintenance issue to be troublesome and without remedy at this point in the project. She then
questioned the accountability regarding the route taken by delivery trucks entering the site. Ms.
McGlinch explained truck traffic would be encouraged to use Highway 7 and Country Road 19
for delivery purposes and would be discouraged to utilize Lake Linden Drive. Commissioner
Borkon then questioned what other options were available to the City regarding restrictions on
City roadways. Engineer Brown stated the City had no authority to restrict truck traffic along
State Aid routes within the City.
Commissioner Pisula requested a detailed analysis of the number of vehicles traveling to the site
from the north as part of the current proposal. In addition, he expressed concern for the
inadequacies stated regarding the bioswale design and subsequent maintenance. Director
Nielsen stated he was also concerned about the bioswale design and recommended strict
enforcement with swift remedial action as part of the development agreement for the proposed
project.
.
Chair Bailey noted the memorandum from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District presented to
the Commission this evening. He stated he believed the current proposal was unacceptable
regarding drainage. In addition, he questioned why the gallery system concept had not been
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
March 19, 2002
Page 6 of8
presented as an option for the site earlier in the planning process. Mr. Sikora stated the
underground pipe gallery system had been used in other projects however, it was not preferred as
it was quite costly. He also stated the design for such a system would be quite "site specific" and
would have cost savings over the long term. He stated he did not have exact specifications and
estimates this evening, as it was not a consideration presently due to cost. He explained the use
of a bioswale was preferred in some communities due to its educational merits in demonstrating
the importance of treating stormwater runoff. Chair Bailey asked Mr. Sikora his opinion as to
whether the bioswale design was inadequate. Mr. Sikora stated it was deficient with regard to
the City's criteria; however, different improvements could be made to meet the necessary
requirements in City ordinances. Chair Bailey then questioned the situations when design for a
pipe gallery system of drainage might be cost prohibitive. Mr. Sikora noted designs would have
to be specified in full construction plans and documentation and the developer would then need
to make the determination regarding the cost.
Commissioner Packard stated the details of the project had not yet been examined, and she was
concerned for the length of time it would take to ready the estimated cost for the gallery system.
Mr. Sikora stated the gallery system had not been designed initially as it was a costly
consideration, and he had a responsibility to provide a solution that would work for the site.
Commissioner Pisula expressed concern for how other design elements related to the proposal
presented this evening would be impacted with the change to the drainage elements. He stated
he remained skeptical regarding the maintenance of stormwater runoff on the site and questioned
whether a new proposal should be developed.
Mr. Taube stated it would be quite costly to make a great deal of changes to the plans at this
point in the planning process. He stated it was his intention to work with the City and the
Commission to try to improve the current proposal to meet the City's criteria.
Director Nielsen commented he did not envision the layout and design of the site being different
unless a surface pond would be utilized for drainage as part of the project.
Commissioner Borkon commented she liked the educational merits in utilizing a bioswale
design, but also noted there were problems in its design. She stated she believed the solution
required flexibility and perseverance in this matter.
Commissioner Woodruff stated she believed balance was important in this case. She liked the
idea of utilizing natural vegetation and filtration. She stated the project should include no
drainage concerns, and she encouraged the design to be as innovative as possible in compromise
to find a solution.
Commissioner Gagne stated he would not be supportive of a bioswale design for the site. In
addition, he stated plans for this project had been heard for the past two years. He suggested the
Commission establish a deadline for submission of plans so that a final recommendation could
be made regarding the proj ect. Commissioners Woodruff and Packard agreed.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
March 19, 2002
Page 7 of8
With regard to Commissioner Pisula's earlier question pertaining to the detailed analysis for
traffic coming to the site from the north, Mr. Dock stated there would be approximately 370
additional trips per day to the site with 2500 additional trips per week. Commissioner Pisula
stated he believed the number of trips per day would be even higher as people would often be
willing to travel a great distance to be able to shop in a unique locale.
Mr. Uban stated revised plans would require at least 60 days for submission. Engineer Brown
requested all information be submitted in its entirety as one proposal as it was difficult to
disseminate information accurately in pieces over time.
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, recommending a motion to prepare findings of facts to
deny the redevelopment project as presented.
Commissioner Pisula stated this was third extensive revision being submitted to the Commission.
He was concerned for the amount of time the City had spent in dealing with this matter, as well
as declining audience present regarding this issue. Director Nielsen noted the developer in this
project would be responsible for payment of City expenses regarding this matter.
Commissioner Pisula stated he would be willing to withdraw his motion should the surrounding
area be renotified, and all expenses paid by the developer for doing so.
Chair Bailey stated he was concerned for the amount of negotiating that occurred this evening as
part of this Public Hearing. He stated the issues of concern heard this evening were fundamental
areas of concern since the beginning of the planning process in this project. He stated he wanted
to see an entire set of plans submitted, free of concerns from City staff. He strongly encouraged
the applicant to work with the City staff to ensure engineering elements were in place. He stated
he supported Commissioner Pisula's motion in this case as the submitted plans were inadequate
and did not work as presented. He also stated he did not believe a Public Hearing should be
utilized for negotiation of key issues for this project.
Without objection from the seconder of the motion, the maker of the motion withdrew the
motion.
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, continuing the Public Hearing, for a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment/Rezoning 1 Preliminary and Final Plat/Hardcover Variance ISite Plan
Review to May 21, 2002 for Shorewood Village Shopping Center, 23680 Highway 7.
Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 9:50 P.M., and reconvened the meeting at 9:57 P.M.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented by the audience this evening.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
March 19, 2002
Page 8 of8
.
3.
DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated a Simple Subdivision as well as Public Hearings for a Preliminary Plat,
Additional Telecommunications Antennae on the Southeast Water Tower, and a Variance to
Maintain Nonconforming Structures in Lakeshore Setback were slated for the April 2, 2002,
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda.
4. REPORTS
1. Liaison to Council
Commissioner Packard reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 11, 2002,
Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
2. Liaison to LCEC
Commissioner Woodruff stated there had not been a meeting of the Land Conservation and
Environment Committee since the last Planning Commission meeting, thus, there was nothing to
report on at this time.
3. SLUC
. Director Nielsen stated the next meeting would be March 27, 2002. Interested parties should
contact Brad for the topic of discussion for that meeting.
4. Other
There were no further reports this evening.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Pisula moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission meeting of March
19,2002, at 10:17 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 2 APRIL, 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
A.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey, Commissioners Woodruff, Pisula, Gagne, Borkou, White, and
Packard; Council Liaison Turgeon; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Approving the March 19, 2002 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes as amended, on Page 2, Paragraph 4, Sentence 4, changing the spelling of
"cue" to "que"; on Page 3, the last line, changing "Principle" to "Principal"; and on Page
5, the last Paragraph, and Page 6, the First Paragraph, changing the comments to reflect
Chair Bailey's throughout, "Chair Bailey noted the memorandum...", "Chair Bailey asked
Mr. Sikora...", "Chair Bailey then questioned the situation...". Finally, Page 6, Paragraph
1, correct the spelling of "Mr. Sykora" to "Mr. Sikora" throughout. Motion passed 7/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - OAK VIEW ESTATES
Applicant: ZB Construction, Inc.
Location: 6090 Chaska Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing. He also explained that this Public Hearing had been continued from the March 19,
2002, Planning Commission Meeting.
Director Nielson explained that the Commission had continued this Public Hearing from March
19, 2002, pending submission of additional information by the applicant and the resolution of
certain issues. The issues have since been addressed and include, the street location/design, lot
sizes/setbacks, and tree preservation/reforestation.
With regard to Street Location/Design, Director Nielsen explained that the cul-de-sac will
remain on the east side of the property, but it will access Chaska Road nearer the west side as
recommended by the City Engineer. This provides a new intersection with better sight lines than
what currently exists. He added that the old intersection will be removed and the driveway for
the property to the east of the subject site will use the new intersection to the west.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 2, 2002
Page 2 of9
.
By reorienting the building on Lot 1 to face the new cul-de-sac, Nielsen pointed out that site
alteration will be significantly reduced. This will considerably increase the chances to save
larger trees on the westerly half of Lot 1. The revised plat will also result in all unit lots
complying with the minimum 15,000 square foot area requirement.
As mentioned above, Nielsen reported that more trees will be able to be protected with the
revised plat. With regard to tree reforestation, the property will be subject to the maximum eight
trees per acre replacement. He suggested that as part of the final plat submission, the developer
should submit a landscape plan concentrating replacement trees along the east side of the new
street and along the south end ofthe project.
Joe Glaccum, 6130 Chaska Road, expressed his concern over the final landscape design. He
stated that many of the residents along the service road will lose much of their privacy and
expressed his desire to see the final tree layout. He suggested the City consider removing the
service road altogether and extending driveways out to Chaska Road.
.
Mark Laberee, 6180 Chaska Road, pointed out that the intersections at either end of the service
road are dangerous. He voiced his concern that additional traffic, along this narrow service road,
will only add to the problems. Mr. Laberee noted that many drivers travel at excessive speeds
and at times use the service road as a short cut. He agreed with Mr. Glaccum that many of the
residents would rather have driveways that extend to Chaska Road versus leaving the service
road in place.
Cindy Mar, 6015 Chaska Road, questioned, what she referred to as, the "strip" mentality. She
stated that at her end of the service road people often drive in excess of 50 mph and believed that
more density would only accentuate the problem. She questioned why twin homes were being
built in a largely single family home area.
Commissioner Pisula asked if any recent traffic study numbers exist for Chaska Road, noting
that at rush hour traffic is visibly heavy. Nielsen stated that he has no specific numbers available
at this time. Mr. Laberee stated that the service road was originally a gravel road, until the sewer
was laid, and it was blacktopped. Mr. Laberee voiced his concern, once again, that the service
road would be used as a cut through point. Nielsen pointed out that, typically, the City tries to
consolidate driveway access to busy streets via a service road, however, he will suggest the City
Engineer look at alternatives for the intersection.
Borkon asked for clarification of where the road will be closed. Nielsen reported that due to the
poor sight lines to the east of the intersection, staff recommended cutting off the intersection and
moving it westerly to achieve better ones. Using overhead exhibits, Nielsen demonstrated the
alteration. Pisula questioned whether traffic would necessarily take the new route. White
suggested closing offboth ends of the service road providing access only at the new intersection.
.
Woodruff asked if this was the best solution staff could come up with. Nielsen stated that it was
with regard to this plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 2, 2002
Page 3 of9
.
Mr. Laberee volunteered to draw up some rough driveway sketches to present to the City.
Nielsen reiterated that Chaska Road was never intended to be a collector street and advised Mr.
Laberee to look into the possibility of consolidating some driveway accesses.
Chair Bailey asked where the Commission would like to go from here.
Nielsen reminded the Commission that this is merely a preliminary plat. Between now and the
time the final plat is presented, staff can address some of the concerns voiced this evening.
Concerns which, perhaps, should be addressed whether this plat moves forward or not. Chair
Bailey questioned whether the Commission could approve the preliminary plat with the
stipulation that staff check into the intersection and other concerns. Nielsen reiterated that the
preliminary plat approval is somewhat separate from the other issues, however, these issues exist
nevertheless. Gagne felt it would not be fair to hold up the developer of this plat while the City
investigates the road issues. Gagne continued stating that there are costs involved for the
developer to wait, and the Commission should approve the preliminary plat now and make a
recommendation to the City Council about the roads. Nielsen agreed, stating that while
redesigning the intersection at the one end of the road may be a good option, it's not something
that you can require of this plat.
.
White moved, Gagne seconded, approving the Preliminary Plat according to staff
recommendations
with the stipulation that the Planning Commission be given the final plat design in order to
review the landscape design.
Borkon questioned whether the plat could be denied based on the fact that we feel it would
adversely impact the area traffic and be considered unsafe. Nielsen stated that while the
Commission could do that, they could be opening themselves up to a lawsuit. A plat exists that
meets the requirements of the City, the City Engineer has said, this is the way the road should
work and the land is zoned for this use. Nielsen suggested that Mr. Laberee go ahead and put
together sketches for the City Engineer to examine and comment on, in the mean time, the City
can look at the intersection. He added, however, that the Commission cannot hold up the plat
while these problems are investigated. Chair Bailey agreed, stating that while they don't want to
delay the developer, the Commission does not want these other concerns to disappear without
some kind of resolution.
Woodruff stated that the diagrams available this evening are inaccurate and that she would like
to see a landscape design, accurate drawing, and a final plat design. Chair Bailey commented
that this is merely a preliminary plat and it's acceptable for it to be incomplete at this point.
Pisula reiterated that while the Commission may have concerns about the traffic, we need to
recognize that the preliminary plat conforms with zoning, meets applicable regulation, and needs
to be acted on.
.
Motion passed 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 2, 2002
Page 4 of9
.
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, recommending a motion to City Council that they direct
staff to work with the neighborhood to study traffic issues on the Chaska Service Road and
make a recommendation in consideration of the pending development. Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 7:42 P.M., and reconvened the meeting at 7:47 P.M.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNAE ON THE S.E.WATER TOWER
Applicant: AT &T Wireless Services, Inc.
Location: 5500 Old Market Road
Director Nielsen stated that AT&T was the first company to locate its telecommunication
facilities on Shorewood property, indicating that they have now applied for a new conditional
use permit to add three antennae panels to their existing array. Nielsen continued that AT&T has
agreed to move all of their antennae to the top of the tower, which would open up the side
position for another interested carrier. He added that negotiations are currently underway to
update the lease agreement.
.
Nielsen reported that staff recommends approval ofthe conditional use permit subject to five
conditions, relocation of the two side panels to the top of the tower; approval of the City
Engineer with respect to structural and operational issues; approval of the City's
Telecommunications Consultant; AT&T enter into a new lease agreement with the City,
including provisions for annual monitoring and current lease rates; and prior to any construction,
the City Engineer requires an additional letter of credit or cash escrow relative to the work being
done on public property and to the tower itself.
Dave Trost, of AT&T and Site Applications, Inc., stated that the new lease agreement would
allow placement of up to 12 antennae. With regard to moving the side antennae panels, Mr.
Trost asked that ifthe structural engineer deems that the top ofthe tower cannot support the 12
antennae, that AT&T reserve the right to return to their side position. He reminded the City what
good neighbors AT&T has been over the past dozen years.
With no one wishing to address the Commission at this time, Chair Bailey closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:53 P.M.
Borkon commented on whether the Commission recommendation has any bearing on lease
negotiations. Chair Bailey stated that although the Commission is not involved in the
negotiations, it is appropriately contained in the motion.
Borkon asked what the requirement is of carriers to allow other carriers to have space on the
tower. Nielsen stated that the tower is City property, which is being leased out. The current
model lease we are negotiating will allow other carriers access of our limited vertical space.
.
Packard inquired as to the overall capacity of the tower. Nielsen stated that once the side panels
are removed, the City can fit a second carrier. He added that if MetroCom removes their
equipment, the City can add a third carrier.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 2, 2002
Page 5 of9
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, to approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit
subject to the five recommendations submitted by staff. Motion passed 7/0.
3. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION
Applicant: James Marso
Location: 6060 Strawberry Lane
Nielsen explained that the property being considered for simple subdivision is presently zoned
R-ID, single family residential and contains 44,138 square feet of area. As part of an estate, a
single-family dwelling and two outbuildings currently occupy the land. Nielsen stated that Mr.
Marso had also purchased 8 feet to the south in order to comply with the 10- foot setback for the
existing home while maintaining adequate width on the new southerly lot.
As suggested in the review of the previous plat, the right-of-way for Strawberry Lane is
substandard in width. With regard to the width, Nielsen suggested that approval of this division
include the dedication of additional right-of-way, including all legal descriptions.
Due to lack of public comment, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public
Hearing at 8:13 P.M.
White inquired whether the designated R.O.W. will effect the placement of current structures.
Nielsen stated that the plats themselves are well in excess of the requirement and any remodeling
behind the first five feet of the structure should be possible.
Borkon expressed how important it was for Mr. Marso to understand that the piece of property
being affected will not give him much opportunity to remodel within the newly created setback.
Mr. Marso commented that he viewed his only hardship as giving away his five-foot setback.
Chair Bailey stated that this newly created setback would not likely be viewed as a hardship, and
could cause him some difficulty later ifhe wants to remodel. Mr. Marso stated that this was
understood.
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, approving the Simple Subdivision subject to staff
recommendations. Motion passed 7/0.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Chair Bailey addressed Matters From the Floor prior to the Work Program in light of a resident
waiting to comment.
Peter Holmberg, 5955 Cajed Lane, indicated that he had been following the garbage collection
issue in the newsletter and asked to hear the status on the subj ect. Chair Bailey announced that
on April 23, 2002, the City will be inviting trash haulers to a meeting to present their ideas and
listen to the Cities views. Nielsen stated that after that meeting, a Public Hearing will be
scheduled in June and suggested Mr. Holmberg continue watching his newsletter for more
information.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 2, 2002
Page 6 of9
.
4.
UPDATE WORK PROGRAM
Director Nielsen presented the 2002 Work Program for discussion. In reference to April, he
asked if the meeting on the 23rd with the haulers could be expanded to include the County Road
19 landscape architect and LCEC. He suggested meeting at 6 P.M. with the LCEC and
landscape architect to discuss the County Road 19 and corridor landscape ideas, followed by an 8
P.M. meeting with the trash haulers to discuss collection options.
Chair Bailey asked what sort of response Director Nielsen expected from the haulers. Nielsen
pointed out that he's received only a few calls or comments to date, however, he presented a
draft letter inviting haulers to the upcoming meeting for Commission comment.
Chair Bailey asked how formal or informal the meeting would be and what format it would take.
Nielsen suggested a round table discussion in which the City shares with the haulers the process
the Commission has been through to come to this point, supplying them with weight restrictions
and information, and expressing the City's concern over the impact the trucks have on the roads.
Nielsen added that he was surprised by the lack of response and controversy over the issue this
time around.
Chair Bailey recommended adding to the letter that this meeting offers haulers the opportunity to
talk with the City in an informal setting.
. Woodruff stated that from experience, working with BFI in the 80' s, the City needs in essence to
start a bidding process. Nielsen agreed, adding that if a specific hauler would like the City
contract, they should be able to provide us with the necessary information.
Pisula asked if the City should find someone in the community to act as a consultant to
determine what the guidelines should be.
Chair Bailey identified two issues. First, the City is obligated to allow the haulers to come in for
talks, but ultimately, the City needs to come up with some recommendations. He wondered if
this process might take up to three meetings. He suggested keeping the meeting on the 23rd with
the haulers short in order to discuss what's been said afterward. The City needs to develop a
position that the haulers can put a price to. Second, Chair Bailey stated, the City needs to make a
recommendation to which a Public Hearing can be held to address.
White believed that the haulers will be more receptive to the City if they are familiar with what
will be discussed. Nielsen stated items including damage to roads, the days of the week, and
other items from the survey comments would be included. Borkon agreed, maintaining that we
know the key issues, which include road damage, certain days, cost, number of haulers per street,
service issues, and coordination with recycling. She asked if these were not the guiding lines or
forces in which to conduct the meeting.
.
Gagne urged the Commission not to be surprised if no haulers show up to the meeting. That
being the case, Chair Bailey asked Nielsen to include the key issues in the draft letter to the
haulers. He then asked the Commissioners to come prepared to develop a recommendation
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 2, 2002
Page 7 of9
regarding this matter on the 23rd, adding that the collection issue could potentially be extended
into August.
The May work program was considered next. Chair Bailey questioned whether an additional
meeting should be scheduled.
Gagne believed that, in reference to the CUB Proposal, deadlines have been set and if those are
not met the matter should be closed with no additional meetings to follow.
Nielsen stated that the tentative date to discuss part 3 of the CUB proposal is scheduled for May
23,2002, if the Commission believes they need the City Engineer present. All the
Commissioners were adamant that the City Engineer be in attendance and agreed to this date,
proceeded earlier that week by a Joint meeting with the City Council on May 21,2002.
In reference to June, Chair Bailey indicated that, eventually, the City will need to hold
neighborhood meetings to discuss Planning District Area Plans. He suggested holding a single
meeting at the Senior Center made up of 12 neighborhood stations. Commissioners were in
favor of this idea and asked Nielsen to look into possible dates.
Nielsen pointed out that the intent was to schedule only one meeting during July. Chair Bailey
suggested holding the meeting after the 4th of July week, while reserving the date two weeks if
necessary.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
7. REPORTS
A. Liaison to Council
Packard reported that much of the first half of the Council meeting was devoted to Park
Commission issues. She stated that the Council was complimentary of how the Planning
Commission was handling the CUB Proposals. Packard added that the Planning items before
Council, the request by Michael Clausen on Birch Bluff Road was approved, Jeffrey Johnson's
setback request was denied, and the Lake Linden Drive reference of Lakes was removed.
City Council liaison Turgeon identified several upcoming meetings and extended invitations to
the Planning Commissioners to attend if interested.
Thursday, April 4, 2002 - The Smithtown Road reclamation project Open House will be held at
the Southshore Senior Center from 5 - 7:30 P.M.
Wednesday, April 10, 2002,6 - 7 P.M. - a Joint Work Session of all the City Councils will take
place at the Southshore Center in an open house format to review the progress on plans for the
Public Safety Facility
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 2, 2002
Page 8 of9
.
Followed at 7 P.M. by a formal meeting, with presentations given on plans and potential costs
for the facilities.
With regard to Freeman Park Improvements, Turgeon told the Commission to expect to see a
request by STLL for awnings over the dugouts on fields 1 and 2 in the near future.
The upcoming training seminar with John Shardlow will include a discussion on interim use
permits, which Turgeon believed might be of use to the new Planning Commissioners. Turgeon
mentioned next, the possibility of adding discussions ofEIS, Environmental Impact Studies, and
EAS, Environmental Assessment Worksheets as a part of the same seminar.
Turgeon reported that Dan Puzak, of the Park Commission, submitted his resignation.
Finally, Turgeon indicated that the Monday, April 8, 2002, City Council Meeting will include a
Public Hearing on Wards.
B. Liaison to LCEC
Woodruff had nothing to report as no meetings have occurred.
C. SLUC
. Nothing to report.
D. Other
Gagne noted that the two boats parked behind the carpet store are still there. Nielsen stated that
the owner indicated they were too expensive and heavy to move at this time. A fine will be
warranted.
Chair Bailey made reference to the CUB Meeting of March 19, 2002, stating his disappointment
that they had not coordinated their engineering questions with staffbefore they came to that
meeting, thus, causing them to go back and bring something else to the table, once again.
White stated that the deadlines should have been presented to them in an earlier phase of the
discussions.
.
Nielsen indicated that staffhas given them all the meeting minutes and staff reports to analyze.
At this time, the drainage issue seem to be their biggest obstacle. Drainage, however, can be
overcome for a price, and if they can afford to solve this issue, they can move forward from
there. The traffic issue along Lake Linden Drive still exists, although a trail could be a
mitigating factor. If a trail could be built to keep pedestrian traffic off the road this could go a
long way in furthering discussions. At this point, however, Nielsen noted that the CUB proposal
only includes a trail on site, excluding the segment north to Yellowstone as desired by the
Commission.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 2, 2002
Page 9 of9
Chair Bailey asked Nielsen if it would be appropriate for him to tell the CUB people that the trail
issue is importantto the Commission. As a mitigating factor in the traffic issue this could bode
well to their case.
Nielsen shared a letter received from Ron Johnson stating that Craig Dawson will be sending a
response. Borkon agreed that a reply should be sent stating that the letter is duly noted and an
invitation extended to Mr. Johnson asking him to follow the permit process.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission meeting of April
2,2002, at 9:36 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Kristi B. Anderson
RECORDING SECRETARY
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002
SOUTHTHORE SENIOR CENTER
5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Woodruff called the meeting to order at 6:15 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Planning Commissioners Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff (also acting as
Liaison to the LCEC); Land Conservation and Environment Committee Members
Ranallo, Pini, Kircher; Council Liaison Turgeon; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Planning Chair Bailey, Planning Commissioner Borkon
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. April 2, 2002
Packard moved, Gagne seconded, Approving the April 2, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes, as amended, on Page 5, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2, omit "of which." Motion passed 6/0.
STUDY SESSION
1. 6:00 -8:00 - JOINT MEETING WITH LCEC - COUNTY ROAD 19 STREETSCAPE
Director Nielsen explained the Joint Meeting format had been scheduled for this evening so that input
could be gathered regarding proposed streetscape ideas for the County Road 19 intersection project. He
then introduced Mr. George Watson and Mr. Tim Wold, of Brauer and Associates.
Mr. Watson explained the County Road 19 landscape corridor ideas presented this evening included the
area from the municipal border of Excelsior and Shorewood on the East to the Tonka Bay municipal
border on the North. Any input gathered this evening would be studied and utilized in future plans for the
streetscape. In addition, he explained at this point in time, plans were somewhat limited, however, he
suggested character planned for the area and roadway be considered as well as issues of concern and
potential solutions.
Various comments were received regarding the proposed sidewalk areas in the streetscape plans.
Commissioner Gagne stated he believed it important that the sidewalk extend to the LRT trail at the
Shorewood/Tonka Bay municipal border. Mr. Watson commented granted easements from property
owners in the area would certainly allow for more sidewalk development in the project.
Commissioner Woodruff expressed concern for a great deal of hard surface in the intersection area. Mr.
Watson agreed and suggested a plan be put into place for the future regarding how various areas of the
intersection should look if property owners were to change over time.
Director Nielsen explained access to the wetland area would be gained behind the American Legion Hall.
Mr. Watson also suggested potential plans be developed for the Xcel Energy site should redevelopment
occur in that area. Director Nielsen then reviewed the plans for the intersection, including the removal of
the Tonka Bay liquor store, the utilization of a stoplight, and signage indicating "No Right Turn On Red"
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 23, 2002
Page 2 of 5
.
from County Road 19 moving southbound onto Country Club Road. He stated these efforts were
designed to maximize safety in the area as this intersection was deemed one of the three most dangerous
intersections in Hennepin County. In addition, the design of the intersection was created to deter "cut-
through" traffic onto Country Club Road.
Discussions ensued regarding the types and suitability of various vegetation throughout the proposed
streetscape. Director Nielsen commented he was concerned for establishing an entrance to the City at the
northerly municipal border along County Road 19. Commissioners then discussed issues of signage and
lighting throughout the entire intersection area.
Commissioner Packard questioned whether utilities in the area would be undergrounded. Director
Nielsen stated he hoped all cities involved would take this opportunity to underground utilities in the area,
but Tonka Bay had not yet indicated support for undergrounding. Council Liaison Turgeon stated the
Council was committed to undergrounding in the area. Mr. Watson stated the cost of undergrounding the
utilities would be well worth it over time. In addition, he stated it would be important to tie all the public
property together in terms of character and suggested perhaps the Country Club would be willing to
visually tie itself to the intersection as well. Further, Mr. Watson suggested signage in the area be
enhanced to designate it as an entry to Shorewood. He noted, with a Master Plan suggestions could be
made for all aspects of the area, and individualized plans could follow over time as areas were developed.
Additional discussion ensued regarding signage, plants, retaining wall usage, and sidewalks. All
Commissioners expressed interest for having the sidewalk connect to the LRT trail at various points in the
area.
. Mr. Watson stated he would return with graphics and possibilities for streetscape ideas within the right-
of-way areas. He also stated the Commissioners should come prepared to make decisions regarding ideas
for the right-of-way areas as part of the proposed streetscape plans. A joint meeting was scheduled for
May 21, 2002, at City Hall at 7:00 P.M. to review proposed plans for the project. The City Council,
Planning Commission, and Land Conservation and Environment Committee were to be part of this
meeting.
Vice-chair Woodruff thanked members of the Land Conservation and Environment Committee for being
present this evening in a joint session format and recessed the meeting at 7 :40 P.M.
2. 8:00 - ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION - MEET WITH REFUSE HAULERS
Upon his arrival, Chair Bailey reconvened the Planning Commission portion of the meeting at 8 :00 P.M.
.
Chair Bailey provided background for the Commission and haulers present this evening as to the purpose
of this portion of the meeting. Director Nielsen explained a letter had been sent to each of the haulers in
effort to inform them of Shorewood intent to organize refuse collection with the City. In addition, he
explained it was hopeful that opinions could be gathered related to various concerns and six options
available for organized collection services. These six options were explained as followed:
1. Continue with the current system of collection services-no change.
2. Restrict days of collection.
3. Require use of smaller refuse collection trucks.
4. Divide the City into three or four districts, then solicit bids and contract with refuse haulers for
each district.
5. Solicit bids and contract with one refuse hauler to collect for the entire City.
6. Expand the Public Works Department to provide municipal collection services.
He then explained the statutory process required for organized refuse collection services.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 23, 2002
Page 3 of5
.
David Wiggins, of BFI, Inc., stated he, like City residents, liked free enterprise and believed choice in
refuse collection services was important. He believed people liked having the choice in collection
services. He explained he had not responded to this issue previously, as the letter he received was the
first knowledge of the intent to organize by the City. In addition, he had come prepared to listen and
resolve issues of concern, as he would like to keep the current collection service contracts within the City.
Steve Metz, of Waste Management of Minnesota, stated he also liked the free enterprise system as his
company had worked hard to get customers, and he did not want to put those efforts at risk. He stated
garbage was like any other service needed by customers, and it was difficult to draw the line as to how to
orgamze.
David Hayes, of Waste Technology, Inc., agreed with Mr. Metz, stating he did not want to lose routes or
customers that had been in place for the past nine or ten years. He also was willing to listen and work out
areas of concern with the City.
Deb Gatz, of Randy's Sanitation, Inc., stated she and her company had worked hard to establish
customers in the area as well. She stated she tried to listen to needs of residents. In addition, she thought
it important for residents to have a choice. She wanted to listen and try to find workable solutions to the
City's concerns. In addition, she stated it was not uncommon for a City to require trash pickup for the
entire City to be on the same day and to also coordinate that day with the recycling.
.
Director Nielsen questioned the use of smaller trucks in the refuse collection throughout the City. Ms.
Gatz responded the industry had forced companies to utilize larger trucks to stay competitive.
Commissioner Packard questioned the haulers as to how damage to the road from the larger refuse
collection trucks was handled by their companies. Mr. Wiggins stated this was the first time he had been
made aware of it as a concern. He stated there were things that could be done to adjust the route patterns
in a City, or they could work to make all pickups in one day for a City and coordinate with recycling.
Commissioner Gagne questioned whether it would be less costly and more productive to have all pickups
in one area, such as would be found in the option of dividing and bidding out sections of the City. Mr.
Metz stated he liked the free enterprise approach currently in place. Ms. Getz responded most residents
want a choice in haulers and had chosen a hauler for a particular reason or service offered. Mr. Hayes
commented his company did not want to lose customers, and drivers focused on the customers in order to
retain those accounts. In addition, he explained his company ran trucks half full in the spring and at other
points in the year in an effort to help with the roads.
Director Nielsen then questioned the haulers as to the number of days it took them to collect refuse from
the routes in Shorewood. Haulers responded a day and at most, two days. Director Nielsen then
questioned whether a neighborhood could work together to secure one hauler and receive a discounted
rate in service. Mr. Wiggins responded it was possible, but people still want individualized attention and
options for choosing service. All other haulers agreed, noting it would be based on certain rates,
however, it would be impossible to get all the people in one area to agree on specific services to be
provided.
.
Chair Bailey stated he would like to be able to find some commonality this evening in what could be done
regarding the issues of concern in this matter. He questioned whether it would be possible for the haulers
to collect the entire City on one day. Most agreed Wednesday would be a date that all refuse could be
collected. Director Nielsen stated he would check into coordinating this effort with the recycling
company. In response to Commissioner White's question, the haulers explained options available
regarding compost service.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 23, 2002
Page 4 of 5
.
Commissioner Gagne stated he believed it was important to consider the use of smaller trucks with a
larger truck stationed in the neighborhood for pickups in an effort to save the roadways. Mr. Wiggins
explained his company could offer the service at an increased cost to customers. Commissioner Gagne
questioned if this cost could be offset through working as a neighborhood to secure a larger number of
accounts. Mr. Wiggins explained the cost to doing so would not be offset in this case, as the number of
hours involved in dealing with additional trips and trucks would not necessarily offset the cost. Mr. Metz
also commented bulk items or larger items could not be taken with smaller trucks. He explained a large
truck could collect refuse from approximately 500 homes whereas a smaller truck could collect from
approximately 70 homes. He stated trucks coming into an area empty, picking up refuse, and coming
back would make more trips thereby decreasing productivity. In addition, Mr. Wiggins stated, the cost to
the refuse company was the same as utilizing larger trucks, however, it became more costly to operate due
to maintenance issues with the smaller trucks. Mr. Wiggins suggested the possibility of starting City
pickups with an empty truck and dumping more often in an effort to work with the City's concerns. Mr.
Metz stated it would be a major setback for his company to utilize smaller trucks without a rate increase.
Chair Bailey stated enforcement issues pertaining to dumping more frequently would be difficult and
suggested working with the idea of a citywide single day refuse collection.
.
Discussion ensued regarding the issue of providing compost pickup service to residents as well.
Commissioner Gagne suggested the idea of dividing the City into quadrants and bidding the compost
issue. Mr. Metz stated he was part of a larger company and noted a bidding situation between the four
haulers present this evening would potentially put someone out of business. He stated smaller companies
relied heavily on maintaining current accounts to remain competitive. Mr. Wiggins stated various options
could be placed in a bidding package that would be attractive to the residents. He cautioned against this,
however, as he saw the potential for a company to undercut themselves to stay in business, and then
service could potentially begin to deteriorate as a result of achieving a monopolized collection service.
Chair Bailey stated the next step in the process would be to discuss this as a Planning Commission. He
also stated any further ideas could be presented within the next month from the haulers and residents, as it
was the desire of the Commission to finish with this study by the end of the summer. He thanked all
haulers for providing their input this evening.
Commissioners all agreed a single day collection of trash was most desirable throughout the City.
Coordination of recycling on that same day was also seen as advantageous. All Commissioners also were
in support of suggesting the use of lighter trucks or lighter loads throughout parts of the year when City
roadways were most vulnerable.
Director Nielsen then reviewed the next steps in the process for organized refuse collection, noting a
Public Hearing would be scheduled in the future to present a plan to residents for comment.
3. PLANNING DISTRICT PLANS
Director Nielsen stated he would have the finalized texts for the Planning Districts at the May 7, 2002,
Planning Commission Meeting for consideration.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
.
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 23, 2002
Page 5of5
.
5.
DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained four Public Hearings related to Conditional Use Permits for Accessory Space
and also a CUP Revision and Variance for Little League Dugouts at Freeman Park. In addition, Public
Hearings would be held related to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Allowing Land Use Designation to
Change, and a Rezoning for a Marina. All Public Hearings were slated for the May 7, 2002, Planning
Commission Meeting beginning at 7:00 P.M. at City Hall.
Commissioner White departed the meeting at 9: lOP .M.
6. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
Due to Commissioner Borkon's absence, Council Liaison Turgeon reported on matters considered and
actions taken at the April 22, 2002, City Council Meetings.
Liaison to LCEC
Liaison Woodruff reported no other meetings had taken place prior to this evening's Joint Meeting with
the LCEC.
SLUC
. Director Nielsen stated Mayor R.T. Rybak would be the speaker for the SLUC meeting, held the last
Wednesday of each month, at the Doubletree Hotel in St. Louis Park at 11:30 A.M.
Other
There was nothing further to report on at this time.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Packard moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 23,
2002, at 9:20 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 7 MAY 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Pisula;
Planning Chair Bailey; Commissioners Gagne, White, Packard, Woodruff, and
Council Liaison Turgeon; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Borkon
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. April 23, 2002
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Approving the April 23, 2002, Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes as submitted. Motion passed 6/0.
Director Nielsen asked that item #5 on the Agenda be removed.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.D.P. - ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SO.
FT.
Applicant:
Location:
Dick and Arnette Lindeen
28005 Boulder Bridge Drive
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing.
Planning Director Nielsen explained that the Lindeen's had applied for a conditional use permit
to construct an attached garage on their property. When combined with the existing attached
garage, the total floor area of accessory space on the property is approximately 1794 square feet.
Nielsen noted that the Shorewood Zoning Code contains four specific criteria for granting this
type of conditional use permit. He maintained that the applicants' proposal complies with the
Code as follows:
a.
The total area of accessory space (1794 sq. ft.) does not exceed the total floor area above
grade ofthe principal structure (5600 sq. ft.).
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 7,2002
Page 2 of 14
.
c.
The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent ofthe minimum lot area for
the P.U.D./S zoning district
The proposed garage complies with the setback requirement ofthe P.U.D./S zoning
district. Hardcover will go from 18.7 to 20.3 percent, remaining in compliance with the
25 percent maximum
The new garage addition will be integrated into the architecture of the existing home
b.
d.
In light of the preceding, Nielsen stated that the applicant's request is consistent with the
requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code and should therefore be granted a conditional use
permit.
Sid Levin, designer for Lake Country Builders, Inc., added that the second floor above the new
garage will be unfinished and the space below ground level connected to the basement will likely
be a shop for the owner.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony at 7:14 P.M. as neither the public nor Mr. Lindeen had
anything further to add.
Commissioner Gagne reported that he had taken a trip out to the property and noted that the
request is fairly straight forward as indicated by staff.
.
Pisula moved, Packard seconded, approving the Conditional Use Permit for Accessory
Space over 1200 square feet, subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 6/0.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING FROM "R-1A/S" TO "L-R" AND
C.U.P. FOR EXISTING MARINA
Applicant: Howard's Point Marina
Location: 5400 Howard's Point Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M., reiterating the procedures utilized in a
Public Hearing and encouraging both brevity and courtesy.
Nielsen presented several comments received by mail and e-mail noting that these would be
entered into public testimony as well.
Director Nielsen began by explaining that representatives of the Howard's Point Marina (HPM)
have submitted an application for the rezoning of the property located at 5400 Howard's Point
Road. Currently zoned R-1NS, they ask that the site be included in the L-R Lakeshore
Recreational district. Nielsen added that the marina owners have also arranged to purchase the
property immediately to the north (5380) for which they also request L-R zoning.
.
As set forth in the staff report, in order to achieve better compliance with the standards of the L-
R District, the applicants' propose to remove, over a three year period, the old cabin and the
house, designated D on the site plan. Overall, the length of the shoreline gained by adding the
northerly parcel to the HPM site allows them to add 14 boat slips to the 45 that they currently
have and the potential for a fishing pier. Nielsen went on to explain that the additional land on
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 7, 2002
Page 3 of 14
. the northerly parcel will be used to expand the parkinglboating storage area and to construct a
landscaped berm as a buffer for residential properties to the north of the site.
With regard to staff recommendations, Nielsen summarized approximately seventeen
suggestions:
1. If the Rezoning of the existing site is consistent with the comprehensive plan - the Marina
is "encouraged" to comply with City Standards.
2. He noted expansion provides some opportunity, but raises many issues (e.g. traffic)
The Planning Commission is encouraged to use Policy from the Land Use
Chapter to make its determination
the only permitted use in the L-R District is water-harboring of boats, the number
to be determined by the LMCD
3.
While the Accessory Uses of the Clubhouse/Store/Gas are allowed, they do not currently
comply with the setback requirements
.
The Storage Building - while it is larger than what is allowed and does not
comply with setbacks, it is allowed to operate and will be required to relocate if
ever destroyed to 50 percent of its current size or value
The dispensing of gas is subject to Fire Marshall approval
4. In regard to the Conditional Use Permit - the removal of the existing small cabin near the
lake would be written in for 2002, the existing apartment in 2003, and the existing house
in 2004
5. The 5380 Howard's Point Road property would be subject to the Rental Housing Code
6. While properties to the east of the site are separated by both distance and vegetation,
storage of boats must be screened from view of neighboring residential uses, therefore
additional landscaping is suggested for both the east and west sides. A new tree line is
recommended along the southerly edge of the site, as well as, a six-foot minimum berm
and six-foot mix of spruce and pines to the north.
Effective screening will be necessary along the property at 5380 in the event the
house is ever removed
7. Tarp Colors should be limited to either white or brown
8.
Summer boat storage should be limited to the space available after applying the one
parking space per boat slip parking is met (31)
.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 7,2002
Page 4 of 14
9.
Reduction in the number of head-in parking spaces is recommended. Eliminate any on
the west side of the street
10. Lighting does not appear to be an issue
11. Noise - while staff has not received complaints, noise from loose tarps could be contained
12. Maintain existing drainage patterns
With respect to the expansion, several factors should be taken into consideration;
1.
The current house is not 50 feet from the northern property line
2.
The proposed docks are closer to the northern neighbor
3.
Additional traffic will likely be generated by a proposed fishing dock
4.
Traffic - while the applicant has suggested the elimination of the launching services
available to the public, which could serve to address traffic issues, they question whether
the general public is best served by eliminating this service
While the applicants state that during the week only 20-25 percent of their
customers are on the lake at one time, they admit that weekend traffic is more
significant
5.
If the expansion is approved, the City should require a 25-foot r.o.w.
In conclusion, Nielsen reiterated that while the City wants to get the existing multiple dock
facilities into compliance with the standards of the L-R District, expansion of the facility remains
an issue. Notwithstanding the question of traffic, the added land area provides a good
opportunity to establish a more effective buffer on the north side of the site. He maintained that
the rezoning, C.U.P. and annual licensing process also provide opportunities to make the site
more compatible with the neighborhood.
Nielsen urged both the Planning Commission and City Council to review the land use policies
set forth in the Comprehensive Plan in conjunction with the evaluation ofthis request.
Dave Albrecht, representative of Howard's Point Marina, pointed out that the Marina is flexible
over the construction of a fishing pier. He said based on neighborhood feedback, the pier could
either stay or go. Mr. Albrecht stated that the traffic situation is heavily impacted by the public
boat launch facility and HPM would be willing to close it to the public or limit its access if
necessary.
Chair Bailey opened the floor to Public Testimony at 7:53 P.M. reiterating the need for brevity,
respect, and courtesy. In light of the number of people present waiting to speak, he went on to
suggest that if one's point had been made previously to acknowledge so and move on.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 7,2002
Page 5 of 14
Dick Schieffer, 5881 Cedar Lake Road, Maple Plain, practiced in municipal law, was in
attendance this evening representing Mr. Nick Dennis of 5360 Howard's Point Road, the
property directly north of the Marina. On behalf of Mr. Dennis, Mr. Schieffer asked that the
Commission focus its attention on the rezoning of the 5380 property, a rezoning request from
single family to commercial use. While the City is eager to bring the Marina property up to code
and have it rezoned; it is dangerous to rezone a residential property. Ifthis property is later sold
and has been rezoned, the City cannot control the future use of the property. He stated that it is
important to his client, Mr. Dennis, to have residential property next to him and not commercial.
Currently, there is a mere twelve feet between he and the neighboring homesite, as a residence
this is acceptable, as a business it is not. Mr. Schieffer suggested that the language contained in
the L-R District ordinance itself protects Mr. Dennis already by acknowledging that "... close
scrutiny and limitation so as to ensure that use of such land does not unduly infringe on property
rights and public health, safety, and welfare ofthose residing in nearby residential sites..". He
went on to suggest that a mini-EA W, environmental assessment worksheet, be performed, which
would include a traffic study, wetland delineation setback, and surface water drainage report.
Finally, Mr. Schieffer stated that after reviewing the Comprehensive Plan he believes it speaks
against rezoning and cautions that "these are areas for future study".
Bill Mason, 27680 Island View Road, argued that while the Comprehensive Plan addresses the
issue of commercial zoning infringing and encroaching on residential development, that is
exactly what is being proposed. He voiced the concerns of he and his neighbors over increased
traffic, noise, and erosion that the additional boat and parking slips would cause. He insisted that
this rezoning would be hazardous to the safety and welfare of the people that live on Howard's
Point Road and was adamantly opposed to the application.
John Mugford, 5755 Howard's Point Road, stated that he had seen a steady increase in traffic
over the past six years and is greatly concerned over the commercial use infringing on the
residential neighborhood. He would like to see the boat launch closed to the public.
Val Gregerson, 5735 Howard's Point Road, felt that Mr. Mugford expressed her views as well.
Malcolm Reid, 5265 Howard's Point Road, believed his points had been covered.
Julie Scheurer, 26930 Edgewood Road, maintained that the overhead maps don't go far enough
in delineating the effected neighborhoods. She believed that the surrounding streets are all
greatly impacted by the proposed rezoning and its accompanying traffic. Ms. Scheurer
questioned why residential properties are subject to remove old buildings etc. when they ask for
C.U.P's to remodel, while a totally incompatible commercial property cannot be brought up to
compliance. She insisted that it is a far more important issue, rezoning an incompatible
commercial property within a residential area, than improving a residential use. She went on to
state that the traffic pressure will affect all the residents from the main thoroughfares inward, as
obviously, a fishing pier would as well. If a pier were built, she maintained that it would greatly
impact the northerly resident, and add traffic, noise, etc. to the area. Ms. Scheurer questioned the
need to add more space here with a regional park nearby; this would merely place an undue
burden on the larger neighborhood and add to the congestion here. She strongly urged the
Commission to vote against the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 7,2002
Page 6 of 14
.
Steve Johnson, 5845 Howard's Point Road, stated that the letter mailed out by the Marina
suggesting a decrease in traffic was insulting. There will only be more traffic and larger boats
attracted to the area.
Tim and Marilyn Olson, 27260 Edgewood Road, sent correspondence to the City stating their
views and asked to review them for the Commission. Vehemently opposed to the application,
the Olson's reiterated that this is a residential neighborhood abutting a commercial development.
Mr. Olson stated that all he sees now out his driveway are boats and trailers, and questioned what
more this would bring. After agreeing with all preceding comments, the Olson's pointed out that
the current 20 m.p.h speed limit is seldom followed and believed the additional traffic brought in
by the expansion would only exacerbate an already dangerous traffic situation. As it stands now,
boat launching during the summer months disrupts the traffic flow in the vicinity of the Marina
by totally blocking Howard's point Road. The addition of a fishing pier would attract even more
traffic from out of the neighborhood adding to an already dangerous mixture of
walkinglrunninglbiking and car boat trailer traffic.
.
Jeffrey Fox, 5270 Howard's Point Road, asked if the City is hastily moving ahead with this
application in order to bring the Marina into compliance before adequately reviewing the
Comprehensive Plan. Many issues have come to light, including traffic, undesirables, etc. While
Mr. Fox commended the Marina for its appearance, he wished to see them close the public boat
launch, add to the berm bringing it all the way to the entrance, and consider designating a public
crosswalk. He supported the Marina but stated he was cautious about the potential effect on its
neighbors.
Tim McNeill, 5620 Howard's Point Road, stated that many of his concerns had been shared by
others but wanted to address the potential detrimental effect upon the protected wetlands. He
added that things would be easier if more space could be afforded those people trying to launch
their boats from the public launch.
Nicholas Dennis, 5360 Howard's Point Road, said that while he does not oppose the Marina
changing its current status to L-R, he does oppose rezoning the property at 5380 from residential
to L-R. He stated that he would like to see the Commission support the opinions of its residents
and take the time to evaluate a traffic study.
Norman Dann, 5285 Howard's Point Road, questioned the philosophy of approving a plan that is
phased in over 3 to 4 years. He wondered how or what recourse the City had if the Marina does
not follow thru. He noted that many of his other concerns had been addressed.
Kathy Grove, 5375 Howard's Point Road, agreed with everyone else's comments adding that
this affects everyone's lifestyles, not just the adjacent properties.
.
Robert Jaksa, 27005 Noble Road, stated that although he lives across the wetland and considers
the Marina an asset on the whole, he is concerned about increased traffic and the need for a
public pier here.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 7,2002
Page 7 of 14
. Barbara Beard, 27185 Noble Road, concurred with previous comments and questioned the
expansion of commercial development in a residential neighborhood.
Diana and Michael Bantz, 26920 Noble Road, believed that the Marina itself is an asset, but
maintained that the traffic issue is a serious matter. The Bantz's acknowledged that speeding and
cut-though traffic are concerns as well and suggested the City undertake a good long study
before moving forward.
David McCuskey, 5250 Howard's Point Road, pointed out that thirty years ago a bitter feud took
place and a lawsuit was filed against the City regarding this piece of property which allowed the
Marina to operate without extinction. He strongly cautioned the City over rezoning.
Nancy Zander, 5215 Howard's Point Road, concurred and had no additional comments.
John Einhorn, 5580 Howard's Point Road, stated that at the outset ofthis evening's meeting, he
had been relatively open minded, however, as a parent of small children, he had been swayed by
the comments of his neighbors.
Peter VanDusen, 10501 Cedar Lake Road, Minnetonka, was here to observe.
.
Peter Holmberg, 5955 Cajed Lane, agreed with everyone else. He cautioned taking away all
parking on the west side since parking is already at a premium and the traffic patterns cross in
the parking lots. He suggested changing the right of ways to direct traffic more safely. Mr.
Holmberg also pointed out that over the years the DNR has been removing many ofthe public
access slips from the lake, which creates a catch 22. Currently, the demand far outweighs the
supply.
William Ruoff, 26365 Noble Road, stated that his concerns had been voiced.
Jackie Colesworthy, 5480 Howard's Point Road, was present to speak for both herself and an
elderly neighbor, Maude Wadsworth. While she felt fortunate to live on the lake and enjoyed the
benefits afforded by the Marina, the traffic was still a big issue to her. She maintained that the
roads are unsafe for her children and already she does not appreciate the nightly headlights
shining through her windows. Ms. Colesworthy voiced her concern over the precedence it sets
allowing commercial owners to buy neighboring residential properties with the intent of
changing the zoning in order to expand their business.
Marilyn Olson, 27260 Edgewood Road, asked about the removal of the large old trees that cover
the properties and wondered how removing old established forests in place of new little ones
could come close to covering the loss that would cause.
Peter Holmberg, 5955 Cajed Lane, questioned the hearsay he had heard that the Marina was one
of the parcels the DNR was looking to eliminate.
.
Jeffrey Fox, 5270 Howard's Point Road, commented that the Metropolitan Council had set a goal
of acquiring three parcels of land, which has been met.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 7, 2002
Page 8 of 14
David Albrecht, Howard's Point Marina representative, stated that as far as the fishing dock was
concerned, this could be easily eliminated and was merely a suggestion by the LMCD.
Mark Peltier, Manager of Howard's Point Marina, as Manager over the past eight years, he stated
that he had not been aware what a great concern traffic was to the neighbors. After listening to
the neighbors, he offered to hold a public meeting with them in order to discuss potential
solutions. Mr. Peltier went on to explain that the property owner at 5380 Howard's Point Road
came to them with the offer to sell them the parcel and they simply viewed it as a great
opportunity. He pointed out that he has always considered the Marina and its neighbors as very
friendly and would like to keep that relationship.
Dave Polley, 27635 Island View Road, offered up the idea that ifthe end result was a reduction
in traffic that would be good for everyone, could we work together to work out a solution that
would be to everyone's advantage.
Julie Scheurer, 26930 Edgewood Road, commented that she could provide a number of investors
willing to buyout the current Marina owners if profitability is an issue to them.
Steve Johnson, 5845 Howard's Point Road, reiterated that many homes are close to the road and
traffic and safety are ofthe utmost concern. With this in mind, Mr. Johnson emphasized that the
residents simply want to be left alone, they don't want sidewalks or trails inviting more people
into the neighborhood and they voted against those in approximately 1998.
Tim McNeill, 5620 Howard's Point Road, asked whether a stop sign could be added midway on
Howard's Point Road in order to slow traffic.
Bill Mason, 27680 Island View Road, cautioned the City against spot zoning.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony at 9:14 P.M. and took a five minute recess.
The meeting resumed at 9:20 P.M.
Commissioner Pisula reviewed the questions to be addressed during public testimony. To begin
with, in the application evaluation stage, Pisula asked what the procedure for doing a traffic
study or mini-EA W would be. Nielsen stated that the Planning Commission holds the public
meetings and makes a recommendation to the City Council, in turn, in their review the City
Council can determine the need for an EA Wand return it to the Planning Commission. Nielsen
noted that any project can be subject to an Environmental Assessment Workup. Another
approach would be if 25 people petitioned the City that an EA W is desirable, then the study can
be recommended and performed.
Pisula asked HPM what record on the number of launches they keep or have available. Based on
an hourly estimate, Peltier broke out the numbers as follows:
Before 7 A.M.
7 - 10 A.M
o outs
o outs
per hour
"
Average
"
2 ins
3 ins
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 7,2002
Page 9 of 14
.
"
5 ins
6 ins
4 ins
2 outs
3 outs
9 outs
per hour
"
10A.M. - 2 P.M.
2 P.M. - 6 P.M.
6 P.M. - 9 P.M.
after 9 P.M. not tracked
Average
"
"
Peltier noted that on a perfect day the approximate traffic with trailers would be 122. Pisula
asked for a breakdown of users. Peltier indicated that, at capacity, 60-70 % of those are daily
launches, while the other 30-40 % are passes they've granted.
Pisula asked if the issue of queuing up causes people to stack up. Peltier stated that those
problems are merely associated with morning and evening loading and unloading.
Commissioner White wondered how many boats the Marina stores on site. Peltier pointed out
that they have 32 on hand and can launch those themselves.
In regard to past traffic studies, Pisula questioned whether any data exists for this area. Nielsen
stated that no formal traffic studies have been performed at Howard's Point Road near
Smithtown to his knowledge since spring in the late 90's. Nielsen added that a pretty accurate
count could be achieved by placing the speed buggy's nearby to check numbers.
.
Pisula inquired over the number of rentals HPM offers. Peltier explained that in recent years that
business has lessoned and they have merely 4 pontoons and 6 fishing boats for rent today. On
warm summer days, the pontoons will be rented; however, Peltier pointed out that the fishing
boats are less reliable.
Pisula referenced the trail study, mentioned by Mr. Johnson performed roughly 2 years ago, and
questioned the reasoning behind why they didn't want one. Pisula noted that after hearing the
amount of concern surrounding traffic and safety why the neighborhood wanted to be left as is.
The potential for redesigning the launch to help with the flow was then considered. Albredt
stated that he had hoped to use information gathered this evening to evaluate the problem.
Although the Marina has tried to maintain a certain level of traffic, he volunteered to consider
moving to privatizing the Marina. Albredt indicated that many private users often don't use their
boats more than ten times a year, which would go a long way to minimizing traffic. At the same
time, the Marina has tried hard to restrict the public use, even raising prices has only helped to a
degree. Peltier added that the launch business itself is not profitable, it is a public service, and it
is a liability that costs the Marina.
Pisula asked Nielsen if any further suggestions for traffic control come to mind in regard to
Howard's Point Road. Nielsen explained that placing a stop sign mid road is not always
effective in slowing traffic, nor are speed bumps recommended.
.
In regard to accountability, Pisula asked how the City can guarantee that the plan will be
properly phased in over three years. Nielsen stated that by getting a financial security that
guarantees the C.U.P., the City can protect itself and the neighbors. Along with the security, the
L-R District permit and licensing process could be used to ensure cooperation.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 7,2002
Page 10 of 14
. As Mr. Polley had mentioned earlier, Pisula questioned the impact more slips, accompanied by
the reduction in launch usage, would have on traffic. Mr. Dennis pointed out that cars and
trailers do currently sit along Howard's Point Road in the no parking zone waiting to be queued
up for launch.
Commissioner Woodruff asked if the berm could be extended to protect the large old tree there.
Nielsen stated that was possible. Woodruff also asked for more information regarding wetland
runoff, and went so far as to even propose a study to examine this issue. Pisula agreed, and
asked whether the watershed would find issue with the application. Nielsen believed that the
watershed would have jurisdiction over this proposal and an interest in the application.
Chair Bailey stated that there was apparent neighborhood angst over the amount of traffic
currently and he was concerned the expansion would only exacerbate this problem. Bailey went
on to note that clearly this issue requires further traffic study and asked about possible time
constraints. Nielsen believed that a rough study could be performed within 120 days, however, a
full-blown traffic study would take much longer. Bailey inquired over the particulars needed to
initiate a study for the mini-EA W. Nielsen stated that the City Council could examine the study
question at its May 28, 2002, meeting.
.
Nielsen reiterated the need for the Planning Commission to determine whether it would be
inclined to approve the expansion in the first place. Approval or denial of the expansion would
have bearing on the need for a mini-EA W. Both Bailey and Woodruff concurred that the
question of rezoning the current parcel is not an issue, however, the expansion of the Marina and
rezoning has apparently caused great distress to the neighbors. Packard stated that she could not
support the rezoning of the northerly parcel for the purpose of expansion and was impressed by
the neighborhood action to stop such development.
While Gagne did not had trouble supporting the expansion if a win-win situation could be
achieved for everyone, however, he did have issue with the neighbors hesitation to build trails
and sidewalks, while at the same time complaining about the danger posed by the roads and the
traffic. It was unclear to him why no one could advocate for a sidewalk or trail, but could clearly
voice concern over the safety of their children being hit by cars. He urged that any traffic study
include the potential for sidewalks. White questioned the timing of a traffic study over the
Memorial Day weekend holiday, cautioning that ill weather would adversely effect the traffic.
Pisula moved, Packard seconded, that staff prepare a findings of fact to deny the request
for rezoning of the residential property located at 5380 Howard's Point Road to L-R
District based on its incompatibility with the Land Use part of the Comprehensive Plan
numbers #5, 6,10, and 11, which read:
"5. All development proposals shall be analyzed on an individual basis from a physical,
economic, and social standpoint to determine the most appropriate uses within the context
of the planning district in which it is located and within the community as a whole."
.
"6. Land use development shall be related to and reflect transportation needs, desired
development and community priorities."
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 7,2002
Page 11 of 14
"10. Intensification of land use activity and development will only be allowed if
accompanies by sufficient corresponding increases in related supportive and service
facilities such as parks, off-street parking, fire and police protection, etc."
"11. Transitions between distinctly different types of land uses shall be accomplished in an
orderly fashion, which does not create a negative (economic, social or physical) impact on
adjoining developments."
Discussion over the motion continued as Bailey informally asked for Commissioner input.
Gagne felt he would most likely be in the minority by supporting the expansion of the Marina.
White was hesitant to support the motion in view of the benefits the Marina provides the
community. While Pisula stated that he empathized with White and the Marina's position, he
maintained that there is limited value in lending more residential area to a commercial use.
Woodruff felt the motion was justified.
Chair Bailey favored the motion and hoped the Howard's Point Marina could still be brought
into compliance with the L-R District without the expansion. He stated that, in his view, the
application was not consistent with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan.
Nielsen explained that by denying the application for both parcels, at this point, the Marina
would need to come back with a new plan and application. Designs would need to be submitted
altering the existing Marina buildings based on the one property design.
Woodruff amended the motion to reflect the denial for application of both parcels. Pisula
consented to Amend the Motion to deny both 5380 and 5400 Howard's Point Road. There
was unanimous consent to amend the Motion.
Motion passed 5/1, with Gagne dissenting.
Nielsen stated that he and staff will work to prepare a findings of fact for the May 21, 2002,
meeting.
3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. REVISION AND VARIANCE - LITTLE
LEAGUE DUGOUTS - FREEMAN PARK
Applicant: South Tonka Little League Association
Location: Freeman Park - 25800 Highway 7
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 10:28 P.M.
Nielsen reported that approximately two years ago the City granted South Tonka Baseball a
conditional use permit to construct dugout shelters in three locations on Fields 1 and 2 at
Freeman Park. A fourth location that required a setback variance, along the third base side of
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 7,2002
Page 12 of 14
. Field 2, was not approved. The structures that were built did not conform to the approved plans
and were required to be removed. Representatives of South Tonka Baseball have now requested
approval for seasonal awnings in place of the permanent structures.
Nielsen displayed a recent picture ofthe dark green awnings, which would be stretched and laced
between the framework of fence rail posts. Of a seasonal nature, Nielsen noted that the awnings
would merely be up during the sporting season. While the concept had been presented to the
Park Commission, they had elected not to make a recommendation until they had seen plans or
an example of the awnings. Consequently, Nielsen suggested that any recommendation by the
Planning Commission be subject to review and approval by the Park Commission. At that time,
the Park Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the Council for a formal
decision.
With no additional comment from South Tonka Representative Brian Tichy or the general
public, Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 10:35 P.M.
Woodruff suggested the Commission be date specific when making their motion. It was noted
that the season runs roughly from mid April through October 15th.
Pisula indicated that he had spoken to John Healy, the neighbor residing at 26040 Shorewood
Oaks Drive, who supplied him with a note in favor of the new awning dugouts.
.
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, approving the Conditional Use Permit Revision and
Variance allowing dugout awnings from April 1- October 30 pending approval by the Park
Commission. Motion passed 6/0.
4. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ALLOWING LAND USE DESIGNATION TO CHANGE FROM
"TRANSPORTATION" TO "SEMI-PUBLIC"
Applicant: City of Shorewood
Location: MN DOT right-of-way between Covington Rd and Old Market
Rd on south side of Highway 7
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 10:38 P.M.
.
Nielsen explained that representatives ofSt. John's Church are in the process of developing a
master plan for the future development of the cemetery located between Covington Road and
Old Market Road. He pointed out that they cannot complete their planning without an answer
regarding the possibility of a land swap that would involve the City acquiring the excess
MnDOT right-of-way north ofthe cemetery and trading it for an equivalent area of more
sensitive land on the south end of the cemetery, The southerly portion of the cemetery would
then be set aside as conservation open space. Nielsen indicated that an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan would need to be made and predicated on MnDOT going along with the
land swap in order for this transaction to take place.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 7, 2002
Page 13 of 14
. Gary Hoffman, Business Administrator for St. Johns, noted time constraints in moving the
planning process forward for St. John's Church.
Jack and Cindy Mayeron, 5580 Old Market Road, stated that they are in full support of wetland
preservation and encouraged the Commission to be consistent when evaluating the City's
Comprehensive Plans.
Tom Erdmann, 19495 Muirfield Circle, indicated that he was strongly opposed to the swap. He
stated that the current open space provided by the old wayside rest property is not only attractive,
but also that he and his family use it as parkland almost daily. Mr. Erdmann had difficulty
seeing the value in swapping steep grade undevelopeable land for green space. He noted that, by
City Ordinance, the wetland can not be developed anyway, and did not see the value in losing the
limited green open space the City has. In his opinion, the Church had not proven that any
hardship exists that limits them from developing the land within their borders. Mr. Erdmann
maintained that this parcel is public land and should remain usable attractive public land; while
the wetland is wetland and will remain wetland no matter what.
.
Ann Christian, 19490 Muirfield Circle, agreed with Mr. Erdmann. She maintained that people
use this public green space and questioned what value or benefit this trade could provide to the
citizens. While conservation open space is desirable, this wetland space would only provide
limited access, not nearly as much would be gained for the citizens of Shorewood than as
provided by the current wayside green space.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 11 :00 P.M.
Woodruff asked ifMnDOT or the state could sell the piece of land to a developer. Zoned R-1A,
Nielsen noted that it will likely be developed and that the state can do as they please. With the
wetlands off the table, Woodruff questioned how accessible this conservation open space would
be to the public. Nielsen stated that the cemetery was favorable to putting in a trail leading to the
wetland area if that was desirable.
Chair Bailey stated that he had gotten the impression from staff and MnDOT that they are pretty
willing to donate the land to the City for park land and/or public use. With regard to the benefit
provided by the green open space, Chair Bailey commented that they are numerous, and not
limited to active use and attractive green space. Whereas, the benefit provided by the wetland
area is limited unless you actually go inside the cemetery, the public benefit is greatly limited.
Council Turgeon departed at 11 :08 P.M.
Woodruff concurred with Chair Bailey and opted that the City obtain the usable open space from
MnDOT for green space and not swap it for conservation open space. Gagne agreed,
emphasizing the need to get the parcel into Shorewood's hands in order to ensure it remains
green space - not necessarily parkland.
.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council that the City acquire the MnDOT right-of-way site and maintain it as open space.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 7, 2002
Page 14 of 14
. Nielsen suggested that he and staff examine the language and rework the text in order to
incorporate this sentiment into the planning district #9 language. At that time he will bring it
back to the Planning Commission for their recommendation.
Woodruff withdrew the Motion. Gagne seconded. The Commission voted 6/0 in favor of
removing the Motion.
5. 8.00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
REGULATING THE HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS
Item five was removed from the agenda.
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were none.
7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The Commission accepted the Agenda as submitted.
.
8.
REPORTS
A. Liaison to Council
It was reported that wards passed through Council on a 3/2 vote and that the revised estimated
cost for the new police and fire station is approximately $12 million.
B. Liaison to LCEC
Nothing new to report.
C. SLUC
D. Other
Pisula reported that the visioning process reflects the desire of citizens to be one community.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, White seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May
7,2002, at 11:30 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Kristi Anderson
RECORDING SECRETARY
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Planning Commission Chair Bailey (arrived 7:25 P.M.); Commissioners Gagne, Packard,
Pisula, White, and Woodruff (also acting as Liaison to the LCEC); Land Conservation
and Environment Committee Members Callies, Downs, and Kircher; Mayor Love; and
Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Planning Commissioner Borkon; Land Conservation and Environment Committee
members Pini, Ranallo, and Schmid; and Councilmembers Garfunkel, Lizee, Turgeon,
and Zerby
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 7, 2002
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the May 7, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as amended on Page 7, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1, change "Bearon" to "Beard." Motion
passed 5/0.
STUDY SESSION
1. MR. PERRY FORSTER. RILEY-PURGATORY CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT -
INTRODUCTORY PRESENTATION
Director Nielsen introduced Mr. Perry Forster, of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District
(RPBCWD). Mr. Forster introduced Ms. Susan Scribner, Treasurer of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek
Watershed District, noting they were present this evening to share information regarding the Watershed
District. Mr. Forster explained the mission of the Watershed District was to conserve the natural
resources of the state by land use planning, flood control, and other conservation projects by using sound
scientific principles for the protection of the public health and welfare and the provident use of natural
resources. He went on to explain the history, organizational structure, funding sources and uses, and
future plans for the RPBCWD. He noted the drainage pond near Waterford Place, as well as the pond
near Ashcroft Circle, were both nearing the end of the anticipated life cycle of usage. As a result, he
explained, both ponds required maintenance work in the form of analyzing and cleaning out the sediment
that had rendered each pond near water storage capacity. He also stated there were a number of
headwaters for numerous creeks within the City, and the Watershed District would like to work with the
City to continue to improve water quality in those waters. Mr. Forster thanked all parties present for
questions, time and attention this evening.
Mayor Love suggested the possibility of examining ponds and possible land for conservation as part of a
comprehensive study of the area in an effort to benefit all communities in the RPBCWD.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 21, 2002
Page 2 of3
.
Planning Chair Bailey arrived at 7:25 P.M.
2. JOINT MEETING OF PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL AND LAND
CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE (LCEC)
o County Road 19 Streetscape
Land Conservation and Environment Committee members Callies, Downs, and Kirchner joined the
meeting as part of a discussion regarding County Road 19 Streetscape plans. Mr. George Watson and Mr.
Tim Wold, landscape architects of Brauer and Associates, then presented conceptual design plans and
potential streetscape ideas for the County Road 19 corridor for comment.
.
Mr. Watson stated he had gathered information from the LCEC and Commission at the April 23, 2002,
Joint Meeting as part of the planning process for this project. With the conceptual plans presented this
evening, he stated he had attempted to incorporate suggestions gathered at previous meetings as well as
provide consideration of six additional issues. He asked the groups present to consider burying power
lines in the project area, provide native plantings where possible, include pedestrian circulation to the
commercial areas as well as access to the southwestern portion of the LRT, provide access to Gideon
Glen, and a more approachable viewing area for the Gideon monument, and provide a memorable,
identifiable visual element at the City's entrances and/or near the intersection. Mr. Watson further stated
the City had an opportunity to do something special in this intersection, and with cooperation between
public and private residents, many enhancements could be made in the area. He then detailed proposed
conceptual elements including a looping pedestrian walkway in Gideon Glen, as well as other pedestrian
areas in the streetscape area. In addition, he stated it would be critical to manage the wooded lot areas
demonstrated in the design plan. He then reviewed concepts for the Gideon Glen area, the Smithtown
Road intersection, City entrance points, and the retaining wall that would be erected along County Road
19.
Committee member Kircher departed the meeting at 8:02 P.M.
Director Nielsen commented this project was an opportunity to create something memorable in the
"gateway entrance" area to the entire South Lake community, enduring over time, and setting a tone for
redevelopment projects along the County Road 19 corridor included in the proposed streetscape project.
The Commission, Committee, and Council members present discussed various suggestions related to the
streetscape project. Mr. Watson stated these suggestions would be taken into account, and a revised
concept plan would be designed and shared with Staff in the near future. He noted the suggestions related
to the Gideon Glen area included access to an overlook rather than a looping trail, and inclusion of a
walkway to the LRT as well as a walkway linking the Public Safety Facility west to County Road 19. In
addition he stated he had heard suggestions regarding providing pedestrian access to the LRT near Timber
Lane, and a looped walkway to the civic buildings in the vicinity of the Public Safety Facility and City
Hall. He suggested leaving the grade separated crossing at the northerly entrance to the City for future
long-term planning. He also stated he would provide alternative ideas for lighting and vertical elements
at the intersection as part of the revised design plans.
.
Director Nielsen commented the proposed pedestrian circulation plan for the project was quite consistent
with the trail concept plan in the Comprehensive Plan as established by the Park Commission.
3. JOINT MEETING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL
o Organized Refuse Collection
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 21, 2002
Page 3 of3
o Planning Commission Work Program
Chair Bailey summarized a discussion held with the refuse haulers at the April 23, 2002, Planning
Commission meeting. He noted the Planning Commission had agreed refuse collection could and should
be limited to one day of the week in order to coincide with recycling. Haulers would continue to offer
yard waste collection services to customers. In addition, refuse trucks should be limited to carrying
limited loads during the City's weight restriction period of March 1 to May 1 of each year. Chair Bailey
also commented the refuse haulers were willing to work with the City to resolve issues raised. With
regard to issues pertaining to weight restrictions on the roadways, Mayor Love suggested a review period
of three years be established rather than try to regulate enforcement issues. In addition, he stated the
Council was pleased with the direction of the findings indicated in the discussion with the refuse haulers.
With regard to the 2002 Work Program for the Planning Commission, Chair Bailey explained the
anticipated projects and issues for discussion could be completed in the remainder of the year, as the
proposed schedule required a bit of revision. Mayor Love indicated support for the projects and topics
proposed as part of the 2002 Work Program.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained the next meeting of the Planning Commission would be on May 23, 2002, at
the Southshore Senior Community Center beginning at 7 :00 P.M. He explained a continuation of a
Public Hearing regarding a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Plat,
Hardcover Variance and Site Plan Review for a Cub Foods Store proposal to be located at the Shorewood
Village Shopping Center at 23680 Highway 7, was slated for the Agenda that evening.
6. REPORTS
There were no reports shared this evening.
Liaison to Council
Liaison to LCEC
SLUC
Other
7. ADJOURNMENT
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May 21, 2002, at
9:17 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2002
SOUTHSHORE SENIOR/COMMUNITY CENTER
5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:08 P.M.
Roll Call
Present: Chair Bailey, Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, White, and Woodruff Council
Liaison Turgeon, Engineer Brown, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent: Commissioner Pisula
1. PUBLIC HEARING - CUB FOODS STORE PROPOSAL - COMP PLAN
AMENDMENT/REZONING/ PRELIMINARY&FINAL PLAT/HARDCOVER
VARIANCE/SITE PLAN REVIEW
(continued from March 19, 2002 Planning Commission meeting)
Applicant: Shorewood Village Shopping Center, Inc.
Location: 23680 Highway 7
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:09 P.M., noting this meeting was a continuation of a Public
Hearing from March 19, 2002, on this matter. He reviewed the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing
and encouraged the continued use of brevity, courtesy, and respect throughout the Hearing process. In
addition, he noted, should the matter be approved, it would appear on the June 10, 2002, Regular City
Council Meeting Agenda for consideration. He further stated it was important to respect the process
regarding this matter, as well as diligence, time, and effort of Staff expended in resolving this matter.
Director Nielsen reviewed changes made from past proposals, noting the traffic circulation pattern had
changed as a result of Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) input. In addition, additional
landscaping had been proposed, including the use of a bio-swale design for the land between the service
road and the mainline. He also described a developer's agreement including items such as landscaping,
snow removal, signage, and hours of operation that would be addressed in a very clear and stringent
manner regarding specific remedies for any failure of compliance with the City's regulations. He
explained Engineer Brown would describe drainage issues in detail. He noted the applicant had submitted
a preliminary plat for the combination of the four subject parcels. Depending on the Planning
Commission's recommendations and approval by Council, the proposal would be subject to review by the
Metropolitan Council. He noted traffic and drainage concerns to be the most significant remaining issues
from the last Public Hearing in this matter.
Engineer Brown explained Chuck Rickart, of WSB and Associates, had stated at the March 19, 2002,
Planning Commission Meeting that a full traffic analysis of all of the intersections operating
simultaneously needed to be completed to demonstrate adequate traffic capacities for the proposal. He
noted Mr. Rickart was not able to be in attendance this evening, due to a family emergency; however, the
traffic analysis had been completed. The site operated at and would continue to operate with a level of
service "C", and therefore, was considered adequate. Engineer Brown also went on to explain comments
had been submitted from MnDOT with regard to perceived impacts of the development to the Highway 7
and 41 intersection. He further explained that under a site plan review application, MnDOT would not
have jurisdiction to review this development. However, since a portion of the plan involved a
Comprehensive Plan amendment, MNDoT gained the opportunity to review and comment on the plan.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 23, 2002
Page 2 of9
As part of the MnDOT review, significant changes were made to the traffic circulation pattern on the site.
It was stipulated that the southeasterly entrance to the parking lot be revised as a "right in only", thus,
semi-trailered vehicles would be forced to enter the site and travel in a counter-clockwise pattern to the
truck docks on the north side of the site. Trucks would leave the site by making a left-hand turn from the
westerly exit onto Lake Linden Drive. MnDOT had requested this reconfiguration to reduce the number
of conflict points (points where traffic movements intersect) in close proximity to Highway 7. Any
reduction in the number of conflict points would increase the allowable traffic capacity of the intersection,
thereby minimizing potential impacts to the intersection. As a result of this reconfiguration, Staff noted it
would be likely that minor congestion would occur within the interior of the parking lot during peak rush
hours.
Steve Gurney, of WSB and Associates, explained rate control and treatment of water were considered the
two main issues regarding any plan. He explained modifications had been made to the plan to increase
the size of the pipes in the proposed underground pipe gallery thereby allowing the rate control
requirements to be met. In addition, he explained the plans proposed the use of an alum treatment in the
pipe gallery as well as a maintenance schedule that would remove sediment periodically in order to
provide water quality improvements for the site. Engineer Brown explained underground detention
basins had been in use for several years. He noted the challenge in these types of systems had never been
quantity storage, but finding a way to remove contaminants, such as phosphorus. Further, he explained
the City required the entire site to be brought into compliance for water quality standards. He stated the
developer had contracted with a leading engineering firm to aid in devising a solution to the removal of
the particulate matter and phosphorus from the underground pipe gallery system. This engineering firm
had proposed an alum injection system. This system was an automated, monitored system that would
inject the chemical alum into the underground pipe gallery, as stormwater entered the system. Under this
proposal, approximately 5,200 pounds of sediment would be removed per year. When compared with
traditional removal of particulate material and phosphorus as part of a NURP pond, the proposed system
was considered to be far more efficient. With regard to long-term performance and maintenance of the
system, a remote monitoring system would be installed into the gallery to monitor water rates and quality.
In addition, a monthly, certified written record of performance and runoff characteristics would be made
available to the City. Engineer Brown stated the alum injection system would provide treatment superior
to conventional methods. Providing an independent consulting firm be hired to monitor and certify the
system to the City each month, he stated, the proposed system would provide superior treatment for the
site.
Director Nielsen explained the planning process for this matter, should the Commission approve the
proposal, the Findings of Fact would need to be prepared for the June 4, 2002, Planning Commission
Meeting.
John Uban, planning consultant and landscape architect of Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, explained a
great deal of work had been put forth to redesign the proposed plans through earnest efforts to provide
enhancement to the Shorewood Village Shopping Center. He noted issues pertaining to traffic, far;:ade
treatment, cart corrals, snow removal, stormwater treatments, landscaping, and traffic capacity studies of
the intersection at Highway 7 and 41, had been adjusted as part of the most recent proposal. He then
explained a traffic flow chart showing the amount of vehicles per day traversing Lake Linden Drive. He
noted the current number of trips was expected to be reduced as a result of the improvements being made
to Country Club Road at the Smithtown Road intersection. Next, he demonstrated the number of vehicles
that would be added to the daily traffic with any development on site and then with the proposed CUB
Foods Store. In spite of the additional traffic generated from a development including CUB Foods, he
maintained there would be a reduction in traffic from the current amount as the intersection improvements
at Smithtown Road were expected to decrease traffic substantially. With regard to landscaping, he noted
enhancements had been planned for the right-of-way areas as well as plantings utilized for neighbors
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 23, 2002
Page 3 of9
along Lake Linden Drive. Mr. Uban next explained the detailed impact of alum treatment in terms of
pounds per year generated in sediment as well as phosphorus levels to be discharged from the site. He
noted the entire site would be treated prior to discharging water into the MnDOT detention pond. He also
noted the far;:ade of the building and architectural treatments provided to maintain visual interest. He
concluded by noting the site had been extensively revised throughout the planning process to make
something unique with regard to the future design and redevelopment of the Center.
Chair Bailey opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M. He explained
questions would be noted and addressed after all residents wishing to speak had been heard.
Austin Kraft, 6125 Rampart Court, stated he had heard plans for this project for over a year, and was
impressed there continued to be good citizen turnout for the Hearings. However, he stated this was still a
large development in a small community that would have far reaching implications for the future. He
remained concerned about the traffic and the amount of development proposed for the site.
Henry Miles, 24035 Mary Lake Trail, wondered about numerous issues pertaining to the City's response,
or lack of response, to citizens' requests that the proposed store not be allowed to build on the site. He
also expressed concern for the amount of traffic near the site.
Kay Marie Rau, 23980 Yellowstone Trail, stated she had moved to Shorewood for the quiet atmosphere
and was concerned for the amount of traffic in her neighborhood. She suggested the use of one-way signs
or a dead end to Yellowstone Trail or Lake Linden Drive as solutions.
Roger Leak, 5370 Minnetonka Drive, stated this was his fourth meeting regarding this matter, and he was
happy to see many citizens interested in the project. He had traversed Yellowstone Trail since 1953, and
had seen many changes in the character of the area. He was concerned the owner had not demonstrated
hardship in this case, and he believed granting the variance would mean losing the character and
convenience of the small business owner found currently in the Shopping Center. In addition, he was
concerned about the rate capacity for the wells in the area. Also, he had conducted his own observations
regarding traffic flow at the intersection of Highways 7 and 41 in the early morning hours, and found
there was already a backup of cars and buses at that intersection. He believed the amount of traffic would
only increase with additional semi-trailer vehicles with this proposal. He stated this proposal would
change the character of the community by making a common ordinary area a large commercial area. He
also stated he was concerned for the welfare of the community as a whole and for the amount of traffic
generated along Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive.
Peggy Wilson, 24140 Yellowstone Trail, expressed concern for traffic in the area. She stated she had
spoken with MnDOT representatives regarding the turn lanes at the Highway 7 and 41 intersection near
the site. She found a trigger system was implemented to spur the use of a turn arrow while in the left turn
lane facing south at the intersection. She was concerned for the seeming incongruity of traffic
signalization at that intersection when coupled with additional traffic streams. She also questioned the
process as this case reappeared in spite of denials to the proposals. She also questioned why the City
believed it must accommodate the proposal when residents were seemingly not in favor. She encouraged
the Commission to deal with the issues regarding traffic in the area, and to think of the people in the area
most impacted by the proposal.
Maureen Burns, 5080 Meadville, Greenwood, Minnesota, stated her grandchildren lived on Lake Linden
Drive, and she was concerned for the amount of traffic on that street. She stated the proposed grocer was
not of issue, however, the traffic was of great concern to residents. Further, she noted a CUB Foods Store
and large retail shopping center was located ten minutes from the area, and she believed people could
continue to shop at that location without need for further development at the proposed site.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 23, 2002
Page 4 of 9
Roger Nestande, 6085 Lake Linden Drive, stated he had lived in Shorewood since 1965. He stated he
continued to hear traffic was a concern, and it did not seem the City was taking this matter seriously. He
noted many vehicles traversing Lake Linden Drive where numerous small children lived. He stated he
was concerned some small child would be hit. He suggested the proposal be placed on an election ballet
in November of this year for final determination by all City residents.
Kevin Bums, 6070 Lake Linden Drive, stated he had resided at this location for three weeks. He stated he
was concerned for the water quality in his home, as filtration was required, and he was also concerned for
the amount of traffic currently going past his house. He stated the traffic was worse than he had
anticipated when he purchased the house, and he could not understand how this situation would be
improved with the proposed CUB Foods Store on the site. He questioned how the Planning Commission
could proceed and justify any decisions of approval based on community support. He stated he would
rather drive to do shopping in the area, as he was quite concerned about his three small children with the
current proposal.
Mike Menth, 6180 Riviera Lane, expressed concern for the traffic as common sense dictated it could only
increase. He also questioned the lighting on the site. He noted the decision to be difficult for the
Commission, and he expressed concern for the size of the development, as it seemed out of place at the
proposed location.
Ed Hasek, 24315 Yellowstone Trail, expressed concern for the amount of cut-through traffic on
Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive. He noted the traffic had gotten worse over the past ten years,
and he suggested the City purchase the roadway back from the stated in order to make it a local street. He
questioned the anticipated peak hours of traffic according to the developer's graph of traffic volume. He
stated the cut-through traffic must be remedied and suggested posting numerous stop signs along the
streets in order to make it uncomfortable for those drivers cutting through the neighborhood.
Mark Stratman, 24275 Yellowstone Trail, stated when Lake Linden Drive had been closed recently, the
amount of traffic had substantially decreased. He referenced the possibility of having to drive children to
and from school in winter should bussing not be available. He stated traffic could only get worse over
time. In addition, he was concerned for the amount of water the proposed store would be drawing from
the local aquifer, as he had noticed a large number of wells in the area requiring attention.
Ed Sheridan, 6150 Club Valley Road, stated he was concerned about the traffic and safety for the people
of Shorewood. He noted children live and play near all the roads of concern. He also stated people do
not want such a big store in the area as it would create many problems.
Stan Taube, developer of the project and Shorewood resident, stated he had listened to resident comment
over the past one and a half years, noting he had heard the residents' concerns for traffic and character of
the proposed store. He noted the process had taken so long because of the complicated issues associated
with the site. He explained the site itself possessed difficult issues. With regard to traffic, he stated the
numbers demonstrated in various graphics had not been generated fictitiously, but were based on an
imperfect science, noting it had never been stated the proposed CUB Foods Store would generate less
traffic. He stated he understood the problems with the roadways to the site and alternatives had been
examined to provide remedy. He asked those present to assume a CUB Foods Store was not approved for
the site. He then explained CUB Foods had identified a number of sites where expansion could occur in
the local vicinity. With whatever site was determined as suitable, he explained, the traffic would continue
to increase along local roadways. He stated Driskill's would not be remaining, as it was not profitable. In
addition, he explained if the current proposal was not approved, he could remove tenants and build a CUB
Foods Store on the site without requesting any variances from the ordinances. He stated he had a choice
as a developer to try to build a CUB Foods store on site, being able to attempt to mitigate traffic issues
and work with the City and area residents, or allow the CUB Foods Store to be placed elsewhere and
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 23, 2002
Page 5 of9
.
continue to deal with the same situations without being able to resolve any of them. He stated he had
chosen to focus on traffic calming measures and try to work with the Commission, City Staff, and
residents to do the right thing. He stated he did not have to spend the additional money required as part of
the current proposal. He stated the location indicated the proposed development would be a benefit to the
area. He stated he believed the best alternatives had been pursued for consideration in this case.
Patricia Hauser, 5805 Minnetonka Drive, questioned the amount of water required as part of the proposal,
in addition to consideration of a smaller store, such as a cooperative, for the site.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing and recessed the meeting at 8:33
P.M. Chair Bailey reconvened the meeting at 8:45 P.M.
Commissioner Packard had compiled the list of questions and directed them to the appropriate individual
for comment.
.
She asked Engineer Brown to clarify the issues regarding the MSA standards and Lake Linden Drive.
Engineer Brown responded Lake Linden Drive was a Minnesota State Aid (MSA) roadway, which
limited the City's abilities and options for providing a solution to traffic issues on that road. He stated the
intent of the MSA designation was to be able to provide a "backbone" network of roadways. Further, he
explained the City could have the roadway "undesignated" for a purchase price of approximately $1
million, and the City was not in position of being able to do that at this time. In addition, he noted, should
Lake Linden Drive become a local roadway, stop signs could not be erected, as proposed by various
residents, because speed limits and stop signs were governed by the State of Minnesota. Should the City
decide to erect stop signs anyway, liability would be assumed for any accidents as the result of
unwarranted stop signs. Engineer Brown also commented if a stop sign was not warranted people had a
tendency to ignore it.
Commissioner Packard asked Engineer Brown to comment on the statistics presented regarding proposed
traffic issues. Engineer Brown responded all parties expect traffic to increase on these roadways as a
result of some development on that site. He reminded all parties present that if a proposal met all the
City's regulatory requirements, the proposal must be approved or all could face legal repercussions. In
addition, he stated he had heightened awareness of the traffic problems in the area, and these issues had
been scrutinized by a number of agencies for accuracy. As a result, he stated he was comfortable with the
numbers generated regarding traffic volumes in the area.
Director Nielsen reviewed the history of this case regarding variance requests, noting for audience
members, there were no variance requests as part of this proposal presented this evening.
Commissioner Packard questioned Mr. Uban about the potential impact on the neighboring wells, and
water quality in the area surrounding the site. Mr. Uban responded the proposal did not include the need
for a new well, however, there would be a new storage area on the site. He stated the water would be
drawn at the same rate from the well as currently being drawn and would be stored in an on-site water
tower. He stated the proposed development would not be drawing down the water profile any more than
what was being done today.
.
Engineer Brown also explained that although more water would be drawn, this was not of consequence,
as the rate of draw would not be affected. He also explained the well would draw water at the same rate
with a pump pumping longer because more water would be used. He commented the City was very
familiar with this type of usage as City wells had to be continuously monitored with regard to draw rate.
Commissioner Packard questioned the developer's team about anticipated peak hours of traffic to and
from the site as well as lighting issues. Fred Dock reviewed graphs presented earlier in the meeting
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 23, 2002
Page 6 of9
.
demonstrating traffic volumes along Lake Linden Drive, noting peak traffic volumes began between
10:00 and 11:00 A.M. and continued to grow until 7:00 P.M. and then would diminish through the late
evening hours.
Director Nielsen reviewed the ordinances pertaining to hours of operation and lighting, noting the
developer was bound to compliance of these issues.
Commissioner Packard questioned Mr. Taube as to whether a cooperative grocery store had been
considered for the site. Mr. Taube responded other options had been explored, such as a County Market,
and no lenders would lend money to a grocer for that location, as there were larger stores in the area that
would cause a smaller grocer to go out of business.
Commissioner Gagne stated, with regard to comments made this evening by audience members, that if a
person owned a piece of land, that person had the right to develop that piece of land to the extent
regulations would allow.
.
Commissioner Woodruff questioned the position of the trash and mechanicals on site. Bob Knutson, of
the developer's team of consultants, explained trash would be compacted in an enclosed container near
the loading docks behind screened walls, and the mechanicals would be located on the roof of the store.
Commissioner Woodruff also stated throughout the entire process the developer and consultants had
worked with the City to respond to issues of concern. She stated the community needed a grocery store
and continued use of other stores in the Shopping Center. In addition, she questioned the applicant about
issues regarding a nearby trail to enhance pedestrian circulation in the area. Mr. Uban stated the applicant
was committed to working with the City to implement a trail along Lake Linden Drive and thought
funding could be made available for the trail project. Commissioner Woodruff also asked questions
regarding the noise at the site and the monuments for the Lake Linden Drive entrance.
Commissioner Borkon questioned whether the CUB Foods Store at Highways 7 and 101 was a franchise
store. Mary McGlinch, of Supervalu, Inc., responded affirmatively, noting the proposed store was a
corporate store in which the owner of the franchise store would also be participating in the ownership of
the proposed store. She noted there was adequate market share for both stores in the area. She also
stated, in response to Commissioner Borkon's question, that CUB Foods, Inc. was typically very involved
in the community, and she anticipated the proposed store would want to tailor its community involvement
to the needs of the area.
Commissioner Borkon then questioned Mr. Taube as to whether he would proceed with placing a CUB
Foods Store on the proposed site should the request be denied this evening. He explained he would be
pursuing two other options for placement of a CUB Foods Store on site. He noted one option to be a
partial removal of the current Shopping Center in order to add a CUB Foods Store, and a second option
included complete removal of the Shopping Center to build a CUB Foods Store that would meet all City
standards without issue.
With regard to placing the issue on a ballot in this election year, Director Nielsen explained Shorewood
was a statutory city and as such, was not allowed to do so.
.
Commissioner Borkon then questioned what other options existed for easing the traffic concerns on Lake
Linden Drive. Engineer Brown stated it would be possible to build it into a larger roadway within MSA
standards. He further explained it would not be possible to have CUB assist in the funding to remove the
roadway from MSA designation, as the State would require the City to purchase the roadway.
Commissioner Packard stated she appreciated the efforts made by the developer to resolve the drainage
concerns for the site. She stated she was empathetic regarding the traffic concerns, but thought she
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 23, 2002
Page 7 of9
.
needed to trust the expertise of the City Engineer and experts regarding these concerns. She questioned
signage for this proposal, and suggested enclosing the walkway to other tenants for customers.
Commissioner Gagne read into the record a letter from the Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowners
Association, dated May 6 2002, indicating support for the proposal from approximately 44 homeowners.
Commissioner Gagne also questioned what purpose would be served through implementation of a
pedestrian trail along Lake Linden Drive and how the safety of residents utilizing the trail and roadway
would be impacted. Engineer Brown stated he believed the roadway to be unsafe, and while the trail
would not mitigate the traffic concerns on the roadway, it would adequately address pedestrian safety
features for that area. In response to Commissioner Packard's question, Director Nielsen explained the
feasibility report would stop the trail at Lake Linden Drive, and there were no current plans for a trail
along Yellowstone Trail and Country Club Road.
Chair Bailey requested clarification regarding the use of the bio-swale design in the proposal and whether
there were any concerns remaining from the City Engineer regarding the proposed gallery system of
drainage and traffic. Engineer Brown state the underground pipe gallery system provided new expensive
technology allowing the drainage from the site to exceed the City standards. He went on to explain he
agreed with MnDOT regarding the use of right-in only lanes at the entrance, however, he was not
necessarily in favor of the proposed traffic circulation pattern as there could be potential backups within
the interior of the parking lot. He also explained with the "no right turn" exit onto Lake Linden Drive that
it would be physically impossible for a semi-trailer to be able to navigate the proposed configuration in
that manner.
.
Mr. Uban reviewed the hourly traffic volumes with regard to the proposed development. Chair Bailey
noted it appeared traffic would be reduced by approximately 100 cars daily after all local redevelopment
of roadways was complete.
Commissioner Borkon stated she was unhappy with the traffic issues on the roadways and believed the
developer had worked very hard in this proposal. She stated representatives of CUB Foods, Inc, had
worked diligently with the neighbors and City Staff to find a workable solution to concerns of residents.
She also state she believed the proposal met all legal criteria set forth in City guidelines and regulations.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, recommending approval to accept the applicant's proposal to
redevelop the Shorewood Village Shopping Center and to include a CUB supermarket as part of
that redevelopment. As part of this recommendation,
1. The Shopping Center's owner and/or CUB Foods, Inc. must agreed to finance the
construction of a trail along Lake Linden Drive running from Yellowstone Trail to the
Shopping Center, with the details of the trail to be determined by City Staff and the Park
Commission.
2. The Shopping Center's owner must agree to enter into a development contract as prepared
by City Staff.
.
The City Staff is hereby directed to prepare findings of fact showing the redevelopment proposal to
be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the proposal satisfies the
following policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
1. Land Use General Policy #5: All development proposals shall be analyzed on an individual
basis from a physical, economic, and social standpoint to determine the most appropriate
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 23, 2002
Page 8 of9
.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
uses within the context of the Planning District in which it is located and within the
community as a whole.
Land Use General Policy # 11: Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses
shall be accomplished in an orderly fashion, which does not create a negative (economic,
social, or physical) impact on adjoining developments.
Land Use Residential Policy #2: Low density residential neighborhoods shall be protected
from encroachment or intrusion of high types and by adequate buffering and separation
from other residential as well as non-residential use categories.
Land Use Commercial Policy #1: The City of Shorewood's commercial development shall
be oriented toward "convenience" type of shopping geared toward neighborhood or
community scale markets.
Land Use Commercial Policy #2: Commercial and service centers shall be developed as
cohesive, highly interrelated units with adequate off-street parking.
Land Use Commercial Policy #3: Existing and proposed service and commercial uses shall
be adequately and appropriately landscaped according to community requirements as
amended.
Land Use Commercial Policy #4: All existing and proposed service and commercial uses
shall be adequately screened or buffered from any adjacent residential development.
Land Use Commercial Policy #14: It shall be the responsibility of existing commercial
developments to assume the burden of making necessary improvements to insure
compatibility with surrounding residential uses.
.
Commissioner Borkon commented the role of the Planning Commission was to determine whether a
project would fit or not fit the criteria legally set forth.
Chair Bailey stated he supported the proposal as there were five key issues of concern at the beginning of
the planning process, and the developer had gone out of his way to resolve those issues. He also noted
something would be developed on the site, and the additional traffic generated by a CUB Foods Store was
not a significant increase in volume to warrant concern at the intersection of Highways 7 and 41.
Motion passed 6/0.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented by audience members this evening.
3. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there would be two requests for setback variances as well as the Findings of Fact
regarding the CUB Foods Store slated for the Agenda of the June 4, 2002, Planning Commission
Meeting.
4. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
.
Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the May 13,2002, Regular
City Council Meeting as well as the May 21, 2002, Joint Work Session Meeting of the Planning
Commission, Land Conservation and Environment Committee and Council (as detailed in the minutes of
those meetings).
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 23, 2002
Page 9 of9
Liaison to LCEC
There was nothing further to report.
SLUC
Director Nielsen explained the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUe) would present a discussion of the
future of retail shopping on May 29,2002, from 11:30 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. at the Doubletree Park Place
Hotel in St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Other
There was nothing additional to report at this time.
5. ADJO~ENT
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May 23, 2002,
at 10:15 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recordine Secretarv
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY JUNE, 4, 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Commissioners Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff; Council Liaison Turgeon,
and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Chair Bailey and Commissioner Borkon
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. May 21, 2002
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Approving the May 21, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
. . May 23, 2002
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the May 23, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes, as amended on Page 1, Sentence 1, change "Chair" to "Chair Bailey," and change the Roll
Call to indicate Commissioner Pisula's absence at the meeting. Motion passed 4/0/1, with Pisula
abstaining due to absence at that meeting.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Mark and Kathy Simanek
Location: 25625 Wild Rose Lane
Vice Chair Pisula opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M. He then reviewed the procedures utilized in a
Public Hearing and criteria for granting variances, noting these items would appear on the June 10, 2002,
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda.
Director Nielsen explained the applicants had requested an after-the-fact setback variance for a covered
porch added to the northeast comer of their home on a comer lot at 25625 Wild Rose Lane. He explained
the porch was built without a building permit, and the existing house was nonconforming with respect to
the side yard setback as it was only one foot from the right-of-way for Eureka Road, whereas 35 feet was
required. Further, the house was only 16.5 feet from the traveled surface of the street. The porch
measured 4' x 12', not including the stairway.
.
Director Nielsen went on to explain, with regard to the criteria for granting a variance, there was nothing
unique about the gable valley that existed on the applicants home, and the roofline would technically
qualify as a problem created by the property owner. He questioned whether the problem of roof drainage
could not be corrected by simply utilizing rain gutters. He also explained the City's zoning regulations
allow the expansion of the single-family residential dwellings, provided the addition complied with the
setback requirements and would not increase the nonconformity. He further explained there was ample
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 4, 2002
Page 2 of 6
.
buildable area on the property for expansion of the house to the west and to the south, and further
expansion should be concentrated in that direction.
He went on to explain the request was further complicated by the fact that the structure had already been
built. This should not be a factor in approving or denying the request, and the variance process was not to
be used to neither penalize the applicants, nor reward them for building without a permit. He reminded
the Commission the case should be reviewed as if the porch was not there. He also recommended, should
the Commission find justification for the variance, it was recommended that the variance be kept to a
minimum as provided in the Zoning Code. As such, the entry should be limited to four feet by four feet
in size, not including the stairs. This would involve removing approximately eight feet of deck and
moving the stairway over to line up with the door. He then recommended the void in area be filled with a
shade tolerant shrub. Staff did not recommend removing the corresponding roof. He also explained there
was no recommendation for mitigating setback deficiencies on one side of the house by increasing the
setback on the other as the other side would be where future expansions should occur.
.
Mark Simanek, 25625 Wild Rose Lane and owner of the property, apologized for building without a
building permit, as he had understood it was allowable to add on to what was onsite without one. He
stated since the house was nonconforming, it could not be utilized as normal, and other areas had to be
utilized for a driveway. He thought the property was unique as it was so close to the right-of-way and
traveled surface of the roadway. In addition, he thought the porch enhanced the property thereby
increasing property values and the City's property tax. With regard to use of gutters, he explained it
would be difficult to connect a rain gutter system due to the height discrepancy of the roofline. With a
porch, he explained, he would be able to make use of that gutter system, as well as protect people from
the elements and injury with removal of water on the stairway. He also stated he had a family of five,
noting it would be improbable that all five people could fit onto 4' x 4' porch. He believed the major
issue to be that the house was nonconforming to use. He stated he liked the home and Shorewood and
was just trying to make the house more comfortable for his family and the community.
Duane Laurilla, 5595 Eureka Road, stated the previous owner had converted the garage area to a living
room. As a result, Mr. Simanek would need to change the entire floor plan of his house to make a door fit
into the conforming portion of his property. He thought the porch looked nice, did not encroach on any
property lines, and would not cause any problems with traffic flow and snow removal along the roadway.
He thought Mr. Simanek should be able to keep the porch and requested the Commission to consider the
same.
Vice Chair Pisula closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M.
Commissioner White questioned whether the applicant could remove the landing and place the steps
under the roof. Director Nielsen explained the Commission's role was to minimize the variance to the
extent possible and turning the stairway would equate to the same footage. Commissioner White also
commented the porch seemed a practical solution to problems encountered when entering the house.
Commissioner Packard stated the porch looked nice as an addition to the house. She noted a variance
would still be necessary to grant a variance with the porch sized to four feet by four and one-half feet.
.
Commissioner Pisula stated if the recommendation did not include removal of the roof, the four by eight
foot porch appeared to be a better solution. In addition, he did not believe it reasonable to move the
doorway into the house to a bedroom to be compliant.
Council Liaison Turgeon questioned whether the Commission's recommendation would be the same
without the porch being built.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 4, 2002
Page 3 of 6
.
Commissioner Packard stated that if an architect had drawn up plans including various options for the
porch, she believed this solution would be the preferred choice.
Commissioner Gagne commented the porch appeared to be a reasonable use, and it finished the exterior
look of the structure.
Commissioner Woodruff questioned whether reasonable use of the property could be made without
granting the variance. She noted reasonable use could be made, and she thought the recommended size of
the porch would look disproportionate
Gagne moved, White seconded, Recommending Approval of the Setback Variance for the project
as constructed for Mark and Kathy Simanek, 25625 Wild Rose Lane.
Commissioner White stated she did not believe it necessary to include the plantings recommendation in
the motion, as the applicant would most likely deal with that aspect appropriately.
Commissioner Packard stated this was an older property with most of the house outside the buildable
area. She believed her rationale for retention of the porch structure was partially due to the
recommendation to retain the roof.
Commissioner Woodruff stated, while she liked the look of the porch, she believed there was too much
structure being placed too close to the roadway, when the variance request would be minimized with a
smaller porch size.
.
Motion passed 4/1, with Woodruff opposed.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
ADDlicant: James Quandt
Location: 22425 Murray Street
Vice Chair Pisula opened the Public Hearing at 7:38 P.M. Director Nielsen explained the applicant had
requested a variance to build a second story addition onto his home at 22425 Murray Street. He further
explained the existing house and garage encroached into the required rear yard setback area of the lot. In
addition to this encroachment, Director Nielsen cited several aspects of the Zoning Code in which the
subject property failed to be compliant. He noted the lot to have inadequate lot width, as it was a "flag
lot." Also, an accessory building straddled the west property line; the driveway access to the garage
encroached onto the neighboring property, and the impervious surface was in excess of 33 percent for the
lot.
.
Director Nielsen also explained the topography of the lot demonstrated the house perched on top of a
prominent hill, with the site dropping away in all directions. He also noted the applicant owned the
property immediately west of the subject site. The existing house contained approximately 1280 square
feet of area, and the applicant proposed adding a second story of equal area, necessitating a rear yard
setback variance of nine feet. He explained that although there was room to expand the house within the
buildable area of the lot, hardcover restrictions prevented outward expansion. Despite the driveway
serving the property being substantially off of the site, hardcover occupied 45 percent of the lot. From
that perspective, he further explained, adding upward to the house would not increase that element of the
property's nonconformity. He stated this could be accomplished by simply limiting the expansion to the
portion of the house that would lie within the buildable area of the lot. He also stated the Zoning Code
allowed that where setback deficiencies existed the required setback could be made up on the other side.
Since the existing buildings encroached 37 feet into the rear yard, a restriction could be established
restricting construction in the northerly 37 feet of the wide portion of the lot. He also recommended the
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 4, 2002
Page 4 of 6
applicant be required to provide a conservation easement over this portion of the lot, where topography
proved difficult for construction. Furthermore, Director Nielsen explained, hardcover should be reduced
on the site wherever possible. To that end, he noted two opportunities for reduction. One such area was
the gravel area north of the bituminous pad and another, the accessory building in the southwest comer of
the site. It was not recommended that the bituminous pad be removed as it provided a turnaround at the
top of the steep driveway to the property. He also suggested the applicant could subdivide 30 feet from
the rear of his vacant land to the west and combine it with the homestead property. By adding additional
land to the site, the percentage of hardcover would be reduced and a problem for any future owner of the
lot to the west would be eliminated. He noted, subject to these recommendations, the variance would not
convey any additional right or privilege to the applicant than to other owners in the same district, and the
nonconformity of the property would be lessened.
Jim Quandt, 22425 Murray Street and property owner, stated he had moved to Shorewood approximately
one year ago. He had purchased the property noting significant remodeling of the house would be
required, as well as the fact the barn straddled the property line. He stated Director Nielsen's
recommendations regarding the restrictions to construction in the front of the lot and removal of the
gravel area were reasonable. He stated he would be amenable to remove the building or to provide a
conservation easement over the additional thirty feet, but would like to review all options prior to making
a final decision. He stated he owned property over two acres in size, making the view of other homes in
the area difficult. He stated the house had been built in 1941, as detailed in his letter regarding the request
for variance, and he had had to deal with the existing nonconformities as part of the review process. He
stated he had tried to keep within the spirit and intent of the ordinances and to build upward seemed to be
the most reasonable means of doing so. He further stated the project was heavily supported by residents
in the area as referenced by the 26 favorable responses. He entered letters of support from M. D. and C. 1.
Pederson, 22230 Murray Street; Dayton and Kristen Reardan, 22345 Bracketts Road; Debra Mahoney,
6150 Deer Ridge; and Jeffrey Papke, 6180 Cardinal Drive South, into the record for the meeting.
Bill Hanslik, 22380 Murray Street, stated he had examined the property for purchase prior to the current
owner and noted the property to be challenging. He stated he was thrilled with the proposed plans for the
site, and would hate to see any changes made to the plans or to the pines on the site. He stated he was in
total support of the project.
Bob Cunningham, 22375 Murray Street, stated he also would have submitted a letter of support, but
decided to appear before the Commission to demonstrate his support. He stated he was strongly in favor
of the project, as it seemed to fit all hardship criteria requiring demonstration prior to granting a variance.
In addition, he stated building upward seemed to make sense in this case as the character of the housing in
the neighborhood included two-story structures. As his next-door neighbor he fully supported the
proposed project.
Vice Chair Pisula closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:52 P.M.
Commissioner Packard questioned the size of the wooden deck shown as part of the proposed project
plans, noting it would appear to increase the hardcover issue that needed reduction. She also questioned
whether there would be any tree loss on site as part of the construction for the proposed project. Mr.
Quandt stated no major trees were slated for removal as part of this project, and all adjoining neighbors
were in support.
A brief discussion ensued regarding various options for mitigating the hardcover area related to the
proposed deck. Vice Chair Pisula stated the additional thirty-foot conservation easement appeared to
make the most sense, as it would mitigate the issue completely. All Commissioners agreed.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 4, 2002
Page 5 of 6
White moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Setback Variance, subject to staff
recommendations, including thirty feet to the west and an additional thirty-seven foot setback to
the front of the property being conserved, as well as the addition of the new wooden deck was not to
exceed current square footage of hardcover, or thirty-three percent, whichever was greater, for
James Quandt, 22425 Murray Street. Motion passed 5/0.
3. CUB FOODS - FINDINGS OF FACT
Director Nielsen presented Findings of Fact regarding the proposed development plan for the Shorewood
Village Shopping Center, located at 23680 State Highway 7. He reviewed conclusions for these Findings
of Fact, noting the proposal had met criteria set forth in the City Zoning Code.
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Approval of the Findings of Fact for the
Shorewood Village Shopping Center at 23680 State Highway 7. .
Director Nielsen entered two letters into the record regarding the proposed project from Kimberly Poe,
23320 Park Street, Excelsior, Minnesota, and Stan Taube, 605 U.S. Highway 160, Plymouth, Minnesota.
Motion passed 5/0.
Commissioner White suggested the issue of offsite tree plantings, as well as securing right-of-entry to
subject properties, be inserted into the development agreement for the project. She also suggested
specifications regarding inclusion of a trail along Lake Linden Drive be included in that agreement as
well.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Commissioner Packard questioned the review process for licensed tree trimmers within the City as she
had an unsatisfactory experience with one of them.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated the Commission would meet in a Study Session Format on June 18,2002. Topics
slated for the Agenda included Review of all Planning District Texts and Review of the Public Hearing
Process regarding Organized Refuse Collection within the City.
6. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the May 28, 2002, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Liaison to LCEC
Commissioner Woodruff stated there had not been a meeting of the Land Conservation and Environment
Committee since the last Planning Commission Meeting, thus, there was nothing to report at this time.
SLUC
There was nothing to report on at this time.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 4, 2002
Page 6 of6
Other
There were no additional reports given this evening.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2002, at
8:46 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recordin!! Secretary
t
.
.
.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT
REGARDING CUB FOODS PROPOSAL
WHEREAS, Shorewood Village Shopping Center, Inc. (Applicant) has an interest in
four parcels ofland (Subject Property) located at 23680, 23780, and 23800, State Highway 7 and
6095 Lake Linden Drive, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof;
and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to demolish approximately 10,380 square feet of the
existing grocery store in the shopping center located at 23680 State Highway 7, then build a new
CUB Foods store extending from the west end of the shopping center onto the three parcels to the
west; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for a Comprehensive Plan
amendment, a rezoning of one of the subject parcels from R-1C to C-3, replatting of the four
parcels into one parcel, conditional use permits, a variance and a vacation ofa portion of Maple
Street in order to build the CUB Foods store and related site improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's application was reviewed by the Shorewood Planning
Director, whose recommendations have been set forth in memoranda to the Planning
Commission, Mayor and City Council, dated 14 February 2002, 13 March 2002, 14 March 2002
and 21 May 2002, all of which are on file at the Shorewood City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's application was reviewed by the Shorewood City Engineer,
and the City's engineering consultant and their recommendations have been set forth in
memoranda to the Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council, dated 15 February 2002, 15
March 2002, and 20 May 2002 all of which are on file at the Shorewood City Hall; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and the Applicant's application was reviewed by
the Planning Commission on 19 February 2002, the minutes of which meeting are on file at the
Shorewood City Hall;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The lot area, zoning and existing use of the four parcels that constitute the Subject
Property are as follows:
23680 S.T.H. 7:
8.32 acres; zoned C-3, General Commercial; occupied by
existing shopping center
.24 acres; zoned C-3, occupied by an existing bank (to be
demolished)
3.52 acres; zoned C-3 and R-IC; undeveloped
.72 acres; zoned R-IC, Single-Family Residential; occupied
by a single-family residential dwelling
23780 S.T.H. 7:
23800 S.T.H. 7:
6095 Lake Linden Drive
.
.
.
2.
Zoning and land use surrounding the Subject Property is as follows:
North:
East:
South:
West:
single- family homes and vacant land; zoned R-1 C
vacant land; zoned R-1C
State Highway 7, then commercially zoned shopping center in Chanhassen
single-family home, then two-family home and two offices zonedR-1C,
R-3A, Multiple-Family Residential, and R-C, Residential/Commercial,
respectively
3. The Subject Property is lower in elevation than land to the east and west, but somewhat
higher than land to the northwest.
4. The Applicant's plans propose the addition of a 60,050 square foot grocery store to the
west end of the shopping center, resulting in a total area for the shopping center of
129,203 square feet.
5. The Applicant has requested that the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan be amended to
change the land use classification of 6095 Lake Linden Drive from "Low to Medium
Density Residential" to "Commercial".
6. The Applicant has requested that the Shorewood Zoning Map be amended to change the
zoning classification of6095 Lake Linden Drive from R-1C to C-3.
7.
The Applicant has requested that the four parcels that constitute the Subject Property be
replatted into one parcel.
8. The Applicant has requested that a small triangle of right-of-way at the end of Maple
Street be vacated by the City. At present there is no turn-around at the end of Maple
Street.
9. The Applicant proposes to replace the existing natural buffer on the west and north sides
of the site with landscaping as illustrated on Exhibit B, attached.
10. The Applicant's plans include the construction of an underground stormwater storage and
treatment facility, plans for which have been reviewed by the City's engineering
consultants.
11. The Applicant's landscape plans include 240 new trees. Shorewood's Tree Preservation
and Reforestation Policy requires a minimum of 103 replacement trees for the size of the
subject property.
12. The Applicant has reduced the hardcover on the property to 75 percent ofthe total site
area by eliminating unnecessary parking stalls to the east of the building.
13.
The parking layout for the Subject Property contains 604 parking spaces. The common
area for the shopping center has been deducted from the total area of the building for
purposes of determining the required number of spaces.
-2-
The Shorewood Zoning Code requires a 50-foot buffer between commercial and
residential property. The Applicant has revised his original plans to comply with the
required setback.
14.
.
15. There is relatively little room for onsite storage of snow. The Applicant has agreed to
haul away temporary piles of snow from the parking lot within 48 hours of the last snow
fall.
16. The Applicant's traffic study indicates that daily traffic on Lake Linden
DriveNellowstone Trail/Country Club Road would be higher than if the vacant parcel of
the Subject Property were developed to include an expansion of retail space at the
existing shopping center.
17. . The proposed entry on the south side of the Subj ect Property has been redesigned to be
consistent with the City's plans for the reconstruction of the intersection at State
Highways 7 and 41.
18. The circulation for the site has been reversed to a counter-clockwise direction pursuant to
the recommendation of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The southeast entry
into the site will be designated as a right-in only. The driveway on the west side of the
site will be designated as a right-in/left out only.
To date the Applicant has not submitted plans for signage for the grocery store addition.
Any additional signage on the property requires an amendment to the existing sign plan
for the shopping center.
19.
.
CONCLUSIONS
A. Based upon the findings contained herein, the Planning Commission determines that the
Applicant's Plans are consistent with the following policies ofthe Shorewood
Comprehensive Plan 2000 (hereinafter the "Plan") and recommends that the City Council
approve the Applicant's request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment:
.
1.
Land Use General Policy #5: All development proposals shall be analyzed on an
individual basis from a physical, economic, and social standpoint to determine the
most appropriate uses within the context ofthe Planning District in which it is
located and within the community as a whole.
Land Use General Policy # 11: Transitions between distinctly differing types of
land uses shall be accomplished in an orderly fashion, which does not create a
negative (economic, social, or physical) impact on adjoining developments.
Land Use Residential Policy #2: Low density residential neighborhoods shall be
protected from encroachment or intrusion of high types and by adequate buffering
and separation from other residential as well as non-residential use categories.
Land Use Commercial Policy #1: The City of Shorewood's commercial
development shall be oriented toward "convenience" type of shopping geared
toward neighborhood or community scale markets.
Land Use Commercial Policy #2: Commercial and service centers shall be
developed as cohesive, highly interrelated units with adequate off-street parking.
-3-
2.
3.
4.
5.
.
6.
Land Use Commercial Policy #3: Existing and proposed service and commercial
uses shall be adequately and appropriately landscaped according to community
requirements as amended.
Land Use Commercial Policy #4: All existing and proposed service and
commercial uses shall be adequately screened or buffered from 'any adjacent
residential development.
Land Use Commercial Policy #14: It shall be the responsibility of existing
commercial developments to assume the burden of making necessary
improvements to insure compatibility with surrounding residential uses.
7.
8.
B. The Comprehensive Plan amendment is subject to the Metropolitan Council determining
that the proposed amendment has no metropolitan significance.
C. The Planning Commission recommends the Applicant's request for rezoning be
approved, since it is consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan.
D. The Planning Commission recommends the Applicant's request for preliminary plat
approval be approved, since it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as would be
amended and with the location of Lake Linden Drive.
2.
.
1.
The preliminary plat includes the dedication of street right-of-way for Lake
Linden as depicted on Exhibit C.
The Applicant agrees to enter into a stipulation of dismissal in Condemnation.
Case No. CD2618, to include release of the quick-take deposit, and
acknowledgement of each party's responsibility for its own fees and costs.
E. The Planning Commission recommends the Applicant's request for vacation of a portion
of Maple Street be approved, subject to the Applicant constructing a turnaround at the
east end of Maple Street, consistent with the recommendations of the City Engineer and
the Excelsior Fire District Fire Marshal.
F. The Planning Commission recommends the Applicant's requests for conditional use
permits be approved, since they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning,
as would be amended, subject to the recommendations set forth in memoranda from the
Planning Director, dated 14 February, 13 March, 14 March, and 21 March 2002.
Approval is also subject to the recommendations set forth in the City Engineer's
memoranda, dated 15 February, 15 March and 20 May 2002. These recommendations as
well as provisions for maintenance of stormwater runoff facilities, landscaping and snow
removal shall be set forth in a development contract between the developer and the City.
The development contract shall be recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder and
shall stipulate that the Applicant shall construct trail facilities abutting his property and
extending north along the west side of Lake Linden Drive to Yellowstone Trail.
G. This approval does not include a conditional use permit for multiple signage. Upon
receipt of the Applicant's plans for signage the City will consider an amendment to the
current conditional use permit for the Subject Property.
.
H.
Approval of the conditional use permits is subject to the review and recommendations of
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
-4-
ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this
. 4th day of June, 2002.
Respectfully submitted
Jim Pisula, Vice Chair
.
.
-5-
.
..~... "'o"iiiis"i2iio':f '12': '52' 'Fll' 'a"i233'7"5"r
01/08~002 11:42
r
:~
I:
,I
I
.............. .............. ..]"2,.................... ......
...................DAGHLGR..SHARDLOW.ii.:.UBAV ...... "[~J~~~ [;103
~UU4
"EXRl:a.t'r An
Cub Foods
SHOREWOOD, MN
(Pet Certificate afllt1e No. 650653) THE PARCEL
I,
The Parcells describecl as ffJflows:
Par 1: lpt 172,
That p~rt or lot 170 IvIng ScNJI:h of the Westeriy extension of the North line of L.ot 172;
That part: of Lot 171 lying South 0( the North fIne of Lot 172 liXl:ended West to the center Une Of
\laQted Waodrt,tff Avenue; ,
That partot Lot 113 tying northerly of the Northerly rfg"t~-way Ane of state Highway No.7 ana
IvIn9 West Qr the East 50 feet' Qf said lot 1'73 measurEld at right ;Ingles from the East line of said
lot 173, AUDITOR'S SUBPIVISION NO. US, Hennepin CaLJnty, Minnesota;
Pi:lr 2:
1 .
,
I
I,
I
.
That part of the East 30 feet of Vac2ted Woodrllff Avenue shown on the plat of "UNDEN PARK,
HENNEPIN co., MINN."~ tying North af State Highway No.7 and Mng South or the ~
extension of the straIght pclrtlan of the NOl'ths2I,*r1V line of Lot 13, -lINOEN PARK, HSNNEPIN
00., MINN."
SLlbJea to q skJpe restrfctJon and covenant as described In instrUment recorded a$ CR. Poc. No.
4060802: (as to Pars 1 and 2 elCcept above part or I.Qt 171 In Par 1)
SubJed: to a temporary snow fence Ea!iement as to the above drascrlbed part of Lot 173, Audltor'1i
Sl.lbdMsfan Number 139, Hennepln CoJJnty, MInnesota, In Par 1 and the above described pirt of
the ~t 30 feet of Vacztt;ed WoadnJff Avenue shown on the plat of "Unden Par1c, Hennepin co.
Mfnn," recordect In CR 8Qo1c 2414 of Deeds, page 293, Doc. No. 3439l1o, tn Par 2;
Subject tg a limItation on the rtght of ao:ess to State HlghwaV No. 7 from the -.txwe clesQ1bed
part of Lot 173, AUditor's SubclMsloo Number 135, HennepIn County, Minnesota, exc::ep~ that part
of 9fd Lot 173, Iytnil between Mo lines drawn parallet with and distant 31-5 reet "na 1-20 feet
Easter1y of the West Ifne of Lot 13, "Linden P8~ HennepIn co., Minn.", fCiCClrded In CR. Book
24t4l of Oeedsf page 293, Poc. No. 3439216f (as to Pars 1 and 2)
And
(?er Trustee's Deed Under Power of-Sale, Doc. No. 33285Sa.)
!..at 11, UNDEN PARK, except the Easterly 30 feet tflereaf, liCQ)rding to the remrded plat tJnwQf
pn file and of rec:ord In the off1ce of the COUnty Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, together
with that part of vacated Maple street which accruf;d thereto by rei:lSDn of its vacation thereof.
AND
(Per Cartlf1cate of TItle No. 849432.)
LQt 12, IlUNOEN PARK. HE:NNEPlN CO., MINN."
.
I=IARSONS
TAANf;raRTA"r1C1N 9iFICIUP
B~"Ill" . P. &..IIw. e_Ill.. . IIll1lnlllU
~ Nil/Tstfve far COmp~he~ Phm Amendment,. Rezoning.
Prellmlnal'V and Fmill Plat., ilnd Sibil Plan ~ptlClltlcln
elT a~K TUCIO . Page-S(Jl'~(J
......--.
Exhibit A
5
.. ';.... "6'iiiis'i2tio'i"12': '52. .Fll. .a"i233'7'Sf
01/08/2002 11:42
................ ."DAGHLGR"SHARDLOW. ii.. .UB'AN'
....,...,.. ........ ............ .... ~.O'06". ..... ............
NO. 047 G104
... .,..,...
II
I;.
I;
.
.
Cub Foods
SHOREWOOD,MN
Those parts of lot$11, 13,14 and 151 'UNO EN PAR.~ HI!NN!:PtN CO. MINN.- and those~rts of
yacqteQ Waaclruft Avenue and vacated MIilPre street, ded/C:;!ted In said pl~t aU descnbed as
fallows: BeginnIng at the Northwes\:erly CXlrnef of said lot 14; thence Easterly to the
Northeasterly carner Qr !WIld ~t 14; thence Northerlv I:Q the Northwest&irly armer.or SClfd Lot 13;
thenea Northwester'v along a R~ which Intersects the SouthwesterlV corner of Lot n, Unden
Park, "HennepIn Co. Mrnn." to the center line of saId Vl:Icated Mctple street; ttJencp SolMeasterty
along sa'd center Ifn~ and Its extensfon, said exteMJDn being palilJlef wIth the straight pol'tl'Ol1 01'
the Northeasterly line Dr SClld Let 13 tn a floe drawn palCtllet with and 3D.DO feet West, is
maasured ill' a right angle, from the East Una of saki lot 11 and the SoutherfV. extensfon of sakf
East Une; thence North along said parallel line to the Norther/v Ilna of said Lot 11; thence Easterly
arong the NorthErly Ifne of said Lot 11 and Its extensIon to the t;ast Hne d the West Haft' of
vacated WooctrWf Avenue thence South along sara Eilst lfne, alia being the West Une af the East
30 feet Of saId vacated Avenue, to the farmer Nartherlv rIght-Of-way line of state Hrghway No. 7
as desalbed in ell acok 2.414 of Deeds, Page 293 (Poc., No. 3439216)~ thence Westerly along
SOlid farmer Northerly rlght-of-wav fine to a paInt 100.00 feet easterlV along said rfQht..gf.~y Ifne
from fts int:eni&c:tIon WIth the Southerly extensIon of the WesterfV line of SCI{~ \.J1t 13~ thence
Northerly paf'llllel WIth said extension and the westerrV line of s~kt t.ot 13, lS distance of 100.00
~t; thence Wes!:arly ta a pglnt on the Westerly line of ~rd Let 13 distant 19.24 feet Northerlv
(rom the most Sauthertv CXfmer 01 said Lot 13,i thence sQutnC1'1y along said Westerly line and Its .
e.xtBnslOrl or said fanner NortherlY rlgllt--oF--waV flne; thenc::a We!iter1y', detrectfon to the right lQO
degrees 54 ml'nute.s 25 Sea:lnds tot he Westerly line of said lat t'1i theflCe NortherfV ",,'ong tfte
Westetfy lIrre fJt said Let 14 to the poInt of begll1nlng.
SubJect to an easement In favor or the crty af Sho~~ In, upon under and over the above-
dasaibeca part qf vaatted Maple Street as shown bV tie Resolution rec:x:m:red 85 ~ Dot;. No.
~10BD.
Subject to and e~sefllent Agreement entered Into between the Contract for Pe!!d vendee.. Everett
J. Dl1skrll and hf$ wife as grantors and Mlnnetonka State Dctnk, it Mfnnesotil CXItparatlon as
grantee as to a part JIf Lot 1S and the West half of ~cated Wcodruff Avenue, which illgreement
,is I'e03n:1ed as CR Dec. No. 1790120;
Subject to an easement In ~VQr of Northern States Power CompitnV over the West1artv 10 feel of
Lots 12 and 11, Unden Park as Shown by the easement recnrded as CR Poc. No. '1957625.
Subject to a Prlva~ npPl.lttenant ea$ElmGtlt of vehicular ilCcess aver and upon the South 50 feet
OF the abO\l~bed part Qf ViilCllted Woodruff Avenue as shown bV Instrument recorded as CR
Doc. No. 4392519;
Subject to l'!In eilsetnent In favor of the State of Minnesota to ~rect temporary snow fenas upon
the Icsnd adjacent w the highway and a limitation on the rfght of access to the tlrghway as shown
certified copy of the Fined Certificate flIed for record in CR Book 241., or Deeds, page 293.
And
All that part of Lots 13 anc;f 1S, Unclen Parle, HennepIn COlJnty, Mlnnesatalf and that part of
Woodruff Avenue vacated, descrIbed as Follows:
COmmencIng at a poInt on the West line of saId Lot 13, Unden Park, Hennepfn County,
MInnesota, which poInt Is located 19.24 feet North of the most Souther/v comer of saf~ Lot 13,
meas\.Irel1 along its said West line; thence South along saId West line ~nd the Southerly extensIon
thereof 100 feet. more or less, tel .tire North rlght-of.wav flQe of State HIghwvy NO.7; thence
... A. "'SDNS~' . NarraUve for Comprehanslvo PIQn AmMdmenlf ~
......... ~ Prlillmlniry and Rnar Plat. Ind Site PIllC'1 Appll~Ucln
~J;lTAT1QN aAQUI:I arT. QRK TUOICl, P..~{)/20
111"""'__ . P- k_. ~'III". . 11-'11101\ . ~l
6
-.':...' 'ci'iitjsi200'2' '12': '53' 'FAx' 'S'i233''iS6
01/08/2002 11:42
iI!
Ii
,.""",.""" 'DAGHLGR' 'SHARDLdw' &' 'tiB"At.(
""""""""""'."""""'~'O'67""""""'",.",
NO. 1347 til05
. . ..,-'l"...~~.;:-~
i1 I'~ AI I
I .t.
.....,r/,... ..~Ll>.."-t...,..l::(r~
, .
Cub Foods
SHOREWODD, MN
Easterly along said North rlght.af-wav line a dl!i~nca of 100 feet to a point; thence Hclrthwesterlv
along a line parn"~ to nnd 100 feet: drstaot from saId flrst descrIbed noe, a Q~nte of 100 feet
to a point; thence Westerly to the point of beglnnrn13.
And
That part of the eqs~ haft or vacated Woodnlff Avenue lying southerly of the westerfV .8Xtanslan
of the Mrth nne of Lot 172, AudItor's SubdMslon No, 135, HennepIn Q)un\y, Minnesota and
nartherlv of the easterly extensIon Dr the noltheasterfy IfJle af Lot 13, Uttden Park Hennepin
Collflty, Mlnne$Ota, aa:ording to the recorded plat thereoF. .
AM
Th~t: part or Trect '" dasc:ribed below:
Trac;t A.
Lot 1S, Linden Park, and Lot 173, Audltcr'!i subdivisIon No. 135, all ac;mrding to the plats thereof
on fUe ancl of telX)rd In the office of the County Ricofder In .nd for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Whrch lies SCIutheasterlv of it nne tun parallel with and ctlstant 95 feet northwesmrfy of Une 1
~escrlbed below and northe~y of Un~ 2. described below:
Woe 1.
from the soutnwest carner of S~on 34, Township 117 NQrth, R.elnge 23 West. run northeasterlv
at an angle of 9 degrees 51 mInutes 4S ~nds from the south line of sard Se.c:t.ian 34, being
also the ftouth Hennapin County line, (measured from eiI$t w north) for 1610.0 feet; l'tlerlcEr
deflect to the left at an angle or 31 degrees 07 minuets seconds for 757.1 feet; thence daflec:l: to
tit left at an angle of 90 degrees OQ mInutes ao SE!CX)nd.s foe' 75 feet to the paint of beginning UI'\f!
1 to be described; thence doflect to the left at an ~ngla of 90 degrees 00 mfnutes ao seoondi far
loa feet to tangent spIra' point thence clenea to tI1e tIght on spIrit' curve at decJi!aslng radius
(spIral angk! of 3 tiegrees ~5 minutes 00 seconds) rOt 2"5.1 ~ to spiral CUtv~ pcintj thence
deflecting to the rrght on . J degree 07 mInutes 21 sec:ond cfl'CUJar CUM (defta angle 23 degrees
37 minutes 00 seconds) far 156.3 feet to Cl.lrve spiral point; thence defted: to the right an a spt~1
curve or Increasing tadlus (spiral angle 3 degre~ ~5 minutes DO seccnti!i) for 245.1 feet to sp[ral
tangent point, thence on tl2ngant to seld curve for 7.9 feet; thence deflect to the left on II 1.
degrees 30 mJoute$ CO secOflCl CUrve (delta angle 6 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds) far 45D feet;
thence on tangent to saId cUNe for 100,1 feet; thence deftect to tile right on a 1 degree 4S
minute 00 second curve (delta angle 10 degreas 5S mInutes 00 seconds) for 24.feet and there
termlnatlng;
line 2
Fram a pornt on LIne 1 described "bove, disl;ant 4GO feet easterly of Its point of tennlnatlon, 11m
northet1V at right angle$ ~ said LIne 1 for 95 feet to the point af beginning of Una 2 to be
described; thenCE! run SQLlthwesterly to a point distant S5 feat northerlv (measured at right
angles) pf a point on said Una 1, dIstant 390 feet easterly of ~ 'paInt of b::rmll'1ittfom thence run
SQutflwesterly to il point: ct'stant 45 feat nortf1ertv Cmeasurect at right angles) of " pglnt on SCIId
Line 1, dIstant ~25 feet ea.sterly of Its point of termrnatlon; thence run wa$terIV parallel to sa'd
Une 1 fQr 80 feetj thence run wester1" to ~ pofnt distant eo feet northerly (measured ~t right
ang(es) 'of a point of said t..lne It dIstant 90 feet easterly of its pornt of termination; thBTIO! run
.... ~EiaNS ~ NalTiitJve for CQmprehenslve Plln Ame"dmcnt. R.l:zCInInEl.
.............. Prallll'lnary and Rnlll Pillf. aM $tt Plilf\ Appllcdan
~RT'A"'f1QN ORAUP SIT t:IIPUC: aTLJDIC ~ -7Q/Z(}
. . ....--..
7
...;.... 'oiitiifi2cjef:f' 12":'54:' 'FU"S'i"233'isi
01/08/2002 11:42
'1 '
I:.
I'
i
.
.
................. 'DAGHLGR' 'SHARDLOW' it." .tiBAN
...................
.................................~.O.08.
NO. 047
... ,,"v.
[;106
Cub Foods
SHOREWOQD,MN
westerly parallel to said Lrne l For 50 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angJe of go. degrees
00 mInutes 00 seconc1s for sa feat and there tsrmlJ"latln5l'
together with a tr'~n9Urar piece 'n ..,ef lat 15, ar.fjo[lllng"QnQ nal1:t1westerty of Ihe above
cfescribed strip Clnd so"thwesterfv or the fallowIng desc:ribed line; Beginning it a paInt on the
northwesterly boundary of the above dascrlbed strlp, dfsbtnt lS feet northeasterly at lis
Intersed10n wtth till\ SOlftheasterly line of Plc!laSilnt Avenue In saId stlbdl\1isfan, as Iocqted and
estabflshea prior to ALf~ust 30, 1952; thence fl./n northwesterly to 8 pornt an the smrtI1eas~y
line of !SaId Pleasant Avenue, distal1t 20 feet northeasterly of said inbarsectfan and there
tennfnatlng.
And
That part of MClpl~ street as shown on the plat or linden Park, Hentlepln County, Minnesota..
described as tying eastarlv of tile !!ioutherly extenslol'T of the West line at Ltlt 11, said Unden Park
ana westerly of Mlilple Street Vaal~ per Doc. No. 44610aO.
a=tAFISDNS
~ATA""QN J:iRQUFI
........,...... . 't Ieow. 5l1nr. . 'llIl....p
~ Narrative for Campreheoslve Pl~n Amendment, ~ng,
~-.. PrelimInary and flnar Platy ana Sh Plan ~Qn
Iii IT ORK TUOIC Page-8tJfBJ
' O1/mvor
8
.,.-IIIQ"I ..~ . IM-m(clll) --..
..... __ _ ____.IIIItt.....s -.. __ III
"aNI ..nalllll NDLLV.&.aID".NVIiI.J. aNaa.....'"
,-"""1...u SNDSII:IYd
Dlaru.ll~~~:' .
-"
10.- NIl qaJfo.r:~
II wna
.......,.. ..........
......... ............
~ lO/fl/~ 31VO
- .ON 'SI~JU
- 03>t:l3H:l
'ViOS]NM" .:10 31VJS 31-11 .:10 SMVl 3H1 H3llNn .l:J].1J.DW -
3cN:)':~~~~~~:~n ~:::r.o ...~~ ~ ~~ :: ~ NM~O
JtJOd'3H tfO NOU.~UO:JdS 'NV1d SIU .1~J. -YlJlID .AB:nI3H I N~IS30
SNOISII\3~ - AJAMnS
LBOO-B6\:-\:9L :'Dj OBOO-B6\:-\:9L :DUD4d
1l>l>55 NI'l '41"Dw.{ld
10l Dl!"S 691 ~DM46!H SO 509
c:q
N-\+-l-d--3t:tIfS5E1 N\;I~
3"VN ~
~
.-
~
~
~
~~I
NmEJlI-[\{l
'JNI '~31N3J ~NlddOHS
3~\;Illl^ aOOM3~OHS
N" 'OOOM3MOHS
spoo,j quo
3nvN 1:>>::
!
<.J ~
<
~ n
.., on
.,; ci
8 '"
z
"
~
z
~ '"0
..
< ~
ll! <
< ~
'"
z fA '"0
~ !>' <n
~
'"
;;;
~ <.J
ci
in on
..; .. .., n
~m m III m m '" m m ci ci ci ci
m m m '" m m <.J U <.J U
"F' ~ ~
or :c
"' '"
N g ~ g ... ,.., .... ... ~ :;' ?i ?i
in :c ~
.., .., .., .l- .... J. .l- N N ~ ~
>- 8~
~ ffi~8~
~~a~g c
~ ~~~~uu
uZo~g~;i~
tj ~Gls~~~
~ ~~8~S;
m g25~2irs~
~ 5u~ugrY.
~
~ Q ,...
U1 )
'"
T
._\
I
I
I-
I I
x
~ ~;
< If)::
~n..
- "'>-
i5
:q~~i
u u u u
ci d ci d
:! ,- ~ :0:
~ ,- ~ ~
li' li' li' 0
"-
?i ~ g ~
...,
'" ~
'"
g ~ is
~ IS
'" ;5
fi' ::>
m
.~~ '" ~
"'
n ~
~< ijl
",0 13 ,
"'2 !ij
~ cC.~ 2m
~~~~~ ~ ,
~ fjll1 i!:~ 2 ..
gz~:iB 0
u
~!]j:"i ~::l w
-,
11.. VI a= ::r: ~ "- ..
rr 01(0 UC) '"
Ii' 2 ;s Ii'
'"
'" ~ ~ '"
'" ~
m
o
:~-~I
W
\-
<C..
\-
Vl
z
o
1-
U
:::J
0:::
1-
(f)
Z
o
U
0:::
o
LL
,--
__~"T
I ~\.
I-
a
z
~~
~
J,
'c
.
Wd l(::8t=TO ZOOVETf~O 'Vl\O.(1I'1':JMP"lS;llPU1IIEI.(1llII86Zl7\S.:J\86Z17\OOOt>\:O
r--;---"----
I..
I
I
I
I
------,
I
I
I
I
I
1
t"ftELlMINARY PLAT OF:
SHOREWOOD VILLAGE ADDITION
17 It....,' g. ---.I"::'- ::.'!t, ~
~,,,p ". I l.CT ~---.:/.~
..."", , .L------ . ~- -
------- ~...- -,--
~----:::~~~~::::~~-..
t:-: t'--;...~;:: J --- ....,c-~-..i'\f't r;. '"
L..: /~';'Ilf<<;::~~~~~V )~r;LllI/V'"
r~m (I ~/_- l.Cc..VQ...,~t' .Ajll. r.:r.=Ii~~~
h\ ~I' I I ( ;.-; " , f.I ~--.,..-
"'i \11 \. I .. , ,~, /,_. .:-&~~ .e
~~ ~ [\'i'~~\..\}~-- ~;:~~!:"~ ' - -'>- -..~ ~'""
~ \.'- -"'.-:..~ ~ ~~~ ~ ..
,~ a~-- ~~ ~....:
t;::J. II-"~~~~~':;: - ~ ~ -
-- f.......~-..:..\:~\ ~~-:~'~~~t-f),~ I / /.-- ~ - 1'l1,3'!lO s.f',~
, .... :\~, .\.:':::~ >,. :: ~
~ -- ""~,,' ,,::, -..:.. ........ !.-
:\ I" I , -1-...... , " ,; , t"1 "'7
\ '-~_rt' I ,\, .'-':'.' -", -~ 1 tr--.Ir, .€,.~. I l,CT :i':
~~ '5\ //'t-, \\~ r.l,~' ~ ~ ;~ ~~~_r'''! I. Ilt..
',\;! '<:\~\-~.__ ., 1'- I ~~' r" ~I' //= (
\ \. ~..... ~~ I \\ ::s.\k _\ l :"...... _
\\~~~7iAP' ST ;T.... ~~ .~\~Il~~G -.. -.. I-.lUl~~~~ IIIII nt;
-- 1_ ~t-7/~ ,'-~ 5:'-('~'"_7"'" =
\ ;;...- ...-: ~ ~JIirr 9:: I \.......... 14= I'- -
\ ;..l' ~~ - - _ _ P / \ " "" ~ 1= ' J ~ =
'l.71( ,....-=~-=-~~ ,'"1= e.- -!r \ ":;.', ~"'~:i!:: _;.:~ ~ =
\ II --;;p- " I _ _ \ I-- I'-;<....--r,' ..!....:
\ =
~ I-.l "/ < I (I '-- - IS ii:: t ;;:: I
It;' e::::> ~~) ~ /:E ~ I
~ ~Jiiil __I . ~ -.qij ~,'-.;K = ~
II-- -I--"'B~ ~. .. ~ ,--"- ..l. ~ -.-,;
~ ~~(.:-I-- ~;~ j ~ =+= ~ ~ ~= '. ;',5; =
__ _ '- I_ =
I-- -- ____' --""'1- ~_ """ -L~ .
I-- - -- "7 ,.. IlZZlZl7I'Zll..... ...;rrl~' I =
~ =C I ::;g- I .:Ii l~'" ,\ II \ \ l~ ~ ~ ~
= -_ ~ \ - >-::1:-= .... ~,' -,- '-~:;:;
;E: ~;;;; I dt:: ~ - '-'g- ~ r ~ ~I -' -:-- ~~.-- ~ ~ \\\ ,...... I//~
..... ::J _Z:I-- """"'1 /,-- ~~~ -- ~ ' ~-- -I. ..............
'1'1 4- ( ~ ~ - - -- ----:-~~'f_\P-
.,V, I =t~;~~- "'=;~:\:::; / =, .B r: '- (~~ :;:E'~'t-. - ~
~ -1,-.j:G ~ \, - Ie. . '- ~ '.A '::
=_?-7.ox1'<- j.,..1!~\J .~, : .~~~ / t \~ -,,;,_
~\ ij'U'. . ~Ii ~ ,,~ " ,\ I ~-!"";;.:--- -..::::~~~- =
'"'-, 1- r,," ~/ ' ' a/-~"''''''' ,- ~. _.op.o::~-"-'- C'~.~~
.." . t.l } \ "' ... ............ ... - .... - - -:...-:..'
_ . ~t,~.~ i / ,~ ~:__------------------ -
-","tJl- ~~.....~.'..,. \.==- / J":17-~ J ~~~/~~_/
~ -;.~~~ ~-t~~"'J ~\/ III
/ ,..:..v- ,_ / ____, ~ """""': - - ...~;:.~ , , /I'" , I A j, Ii IllllD
.J ~ ~ -- ,."".-' .___-Fff( ~0CIIIc.::.a::=-::a=-.r=.:'=::"~.:..:::=:::.:'.::,.,
~' "_....~- __ _._.00'__....___........._
":;:J ~~. -'. ~ ....... -- ,. ..--'" --.. ~ll2. ~":.:;rm.IOCO=---:=: -..a:r :.::. ~c:.:.-.=I'::DC)'.'
~. 1~'I1,.;7''".ir-::!!~.--.::C''~ ....~:::..,. "..,..r' _~-- :=l,:.;g:.::.:=t."':'::.:""'-_......................"..
~~7~~ ,-.,....j-C
......\,.. ~ ,?"~ ~ --- ..--- ~ ~r" 2.) c.tocl OCIPIG: S1ATt ONE CAlL at 1$;1-$-0002 ... pr.- ...... Iocot.. 01 ..t.._
-, rr ...;-"'.-:~ ..."._- "-'" pdorloClft7_11aft.
,J '" .r _~
~ ."'.. / ___ _ 1) 'Ihit ......, ... ......... .tholI, 1M MneRt of ~ tlu, -' to.Mntl.
? ~ ClNWI..MCtI, .... -=umbtoftcel fftltJ ... h DltlIIUCIn 1. u.. .....~ Thll...., 11
_,___ = .. _ _ _I.......... Ullo __ _. or ........... uu.
~"~oc:,'::::: =~~~~~:;=I:t-='::'
2. IIltZ.
I
A ;" -,I C..:" I
,-, v h t- ...:
/I, / ;'/:-"- d
U\' '\ }I/I I /,////:"/:', ---'-
'. I, 1,4-'('<.< '-.=;:.--=-::;;- ::
-.. --...r:- ~ _ r::.
::-: '7 - - '" ~..
-:.... __ -I... / .., ~'-
....- ' I.;.,; 11! r' :::l.;::
I'''I'.I'~;. ....~~. ~... Ii I //- ~~
I. 1.....,/ III II / f.i:-
~[j (_ 1,1 " / i
- 'I/(' I l/--
= I, 1/' I "';-
- I II' i) ::
(1///. '"
I ,;it .. ~'/~ l;:-
f. ~ "'" k
I I :;(.0;~
~ ;7
I
I
,.,.. rI ~ .......
R~n.
I
, ~ I
-, :.:
.,.. /'\ ,'\
, , ,... 11 _ II V I
V vjfJ II \ .
\ ~ \ I '~-; -:.::-
\. II,'" -
-
-
III~ I
./ '" L.
~
--......
~ ~'II&8r,.l: _It R: : 't.If. ==
1111''''' __n.-l&a_
A
,(
......
---
~)
"
..
~
..
~)
.~
RENOVATED RETAIL
69,15.3 S.F.
......,
".
b
!
l-
I-
I'-
I-
.....,
~
'II,
II11
',/1 ~\
\1\1 ~
II ,~\
1\\\11 I
\\~ I
I\~
\ \~
\ ~
I
I
,,,-
,.v'
... ..
I
\
\
I
i~
"-
I
H
~
'\ \~
\ '''' ~
\'
i F
~ .
~~
~
\
H..
\ =..:-,
I"""IH
.. 0
1""'""-
sc.u:
..
10
.
fUT
..
-
on:
-
CO
....
CI'/
rr
...
....
-
..
-
>CD
-
...
U'
-
Of.....
=. ll#/lIU
..
...
III
...
... .
....
111
ITA
-
...
..
-
... lal
.......
-
...
....... ..........................
--...
---
--....
---
........1rIl...........
-..-
=5n:S
== ~....
===--=....
== =-'=
---
----
---
===-=
-....-
.......-,.......
==~......
---
== = -::.. -= ...--.
o.r..... .. .. ..... ... .......
0...lIl....................
--
---
==..~..~........
................ ........
--..
~c.a........,.
--..
...... .. ...
...... ~ ar-. ..... ...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L______
~:.
~
....-"
7~"-
~
~
V
I ;
r
I
;;
.. ew.-.. .. "" ... .-J)
..."
"">1.
,... ... eC LeI ,JIt.... .... .. .. .....,....... .. .. .... .. .. LeI In;:
::..:n .. LeI 171 .... ..... .. .. ... .. .. I.M n:I....... ..... .. .. _1Ir ... .. ..... ....-..
n.II,.,..... .q.... _.... II.. ........,............,.............,..., - '"........
fr:'=' ..c:::~~ --- . ..... ...... ... .. hII ... .. ...... I'" ..ran ...... IlQ.
....
n.I.-I" .. r.t...." __...... ""--......... If'e "".. '\.NIDI.......... CQ., .....
.,....... .............,..."""......... ..~........ II IN.......'....."..
.....................l1, "UiIeDHM........c:a..-..
"JIIIt .. . .. ____ ... ...... ....... lit ............ ,..... . -=- .... ... ~ C- Ie ....
I....'.............' "LIIl 1'1 III,. IJ
~~'r.:::t::.~ =:-~.......::. -=---= :r''':~ ~7.l~~"'"
~..........................,....... ea............." CI.. 2\ll.4 ..~.... as. II&.
... J&3a',,,,,, II
=....~...:. ~~.::-a:.:=,':':::'= ::.~';.~~
... ..... ...... .. ... ..... _ 11M ... _ .... c...., fI .. .-. .. .. LeI 'I, '\~ ....
......... ClI.. "'., __~ at'" JlI."o... .....aa.o.c. _.JUIQ", l_......'..1)
...
P. ,.......0IIIlI.................... ~I
=~~.:s':~a::-:.~-::-:.~, -:.=:-..-:.~.r"::':'
-
... CIIr.... .. "'" ... .....
.... '2. ...-. ...... .....,. c:a.. ....
::=a~~:-~~~~.:::=:.~..~~--
.... .. .... ... '.A :r.:.::.:....... . ... .... ....... .. ............... .. ~ .1. ~
::..~c..=::ii:.;-=-:~-:;-:-=-:!~~..=J-~In:I:
::::::r.::=.::=, r:: =----= I~~":-c:. ':.~.: =..-: =.~ .....
=:':-:-'::-=.,":;\!:f-=-~-:"'~ -.:::.~.....,.-;:.:::: :n:..
~-=.TZ.~=:=$IE=m~.:..~'t:......LeI
=:=t:~...: ::~':::'~~~...'==:r:r..= ==....,
=L:l': ::.. -=-.::=. -::-::.:,: 'r ..,.~ ':. -=-..a..;:; .. .. ....., ... ..
!::.:.: =: :.:='.:' .:.:u'........: ~ n.-:. ==- 1M............... ..
".1...,1--" ~.......".............~... DM--.r-.n.a.............
;::. U':1':: =-=--=- = =,,, -== ..clC'':' :',.\,,= .. "" It..... ...
=~...'='.:,"..~:...--::r:.~........,I.......UllIII...I..
... ............,........ ....-............ _......,............. II...
...-...-- .... .. ..... ~ ...... . _ .,...--.. ,..... . ca .... ... ...."
::~......-:-=.t.. "': ~ ~-:r.:..-:= ~I~-::r...::::r;. -;;.....c.::t::' ..
... .......111 01..11'01..............
...
......,. ..1.eII1)..1S.u...--.........~~................. ..,..~................
..... . ,....
~ tl.......:.~....':.:.-:.~~~~LIIl"'11~..~~..e::c':::
Jw~~"""'''''''' .......,................. ............-. ..........1.......,..
:-==:=i::=.~==-=.~-,.....~".':::. ~'.r':.'::-
...
.... -'..................,....., --..IJI"I....,.. u.......,.......... Ill............
~C..~~l~":=..~ -=:......-=='-...:-~:.r::.:...
..
n.I ~ " ,... .to ...... __
'_A
1M '..\MIIl..........cUll In.........................&..--. Ie.......................
..... "" ... .... .. "" c..ttl,...... '" .... .. ..... c-... ..........
1HIift...~............................... III ...--.-...,,,",- .............
....., II LM t ....... ...
....,
::..:',r:= r"::'':~~ II:l~34.u=-===-:::~~
~...... ......)... ..,....... ............ IlIlIIl............k __.,.........
...... "'.1 II-': __...... hi ...l1li_.. .......................... "......
Ill............. u.' .......... ....................................... ....... II
_.. .. .. I. ...... ..... ,.,._ .... .... loll ... ..... .. ..... .... II ...... .... ~
........I--......~..I&I.... ..................~ ........
~...:.::-..:. -=~;:' ~.::-.:. -:r-":"-:' ~ '-; =- '-;. ..
...... . ....., .. ....1 11M .. ..... ....... .... __ _ ....... '-.... ..... -e ,.. ,.. ....
:-..: :.:':.:.:--r:-......='::..-r= '::.l~--: '- -=- ~ .-r-:;:':=J. ':.
-..I ...... t........ .t ..... 56 ...... . .-lit) ... 11 .... ... ..... ..........
,.. ,
=-.::W~ :.-:-=:-: :r..-::.::. ~~ ':CW~~ =~1~1:t'.
=~~~~1:a~~:=e~=;;~-,
lit . _ ..... nil ....., .. . ..... ....... . ... ...... (__ .. .....1 =r::... .. ....
..... '...... . IIIIl .....,.. III ..... .. ......... ... !WI ......,....... .. .... ..... I lit II l1li:
..... .... .. .... """ .. 1M """ .. .. .... l1li ...... IIID __ .. II ..... ... .... ..........
~I::~~:.~~~'~.-::.~....~: ......=..-:.~
.......... ......1 II lilt ~~...... ..~"'L;................. ~...
................................. ..~... 1_ ....__...............w.....
........,... .. ... ...... ....... __ ill .... ............. .... ~ ... __ .........
...
::.=-.......*:::: .:.=.n:-.:r.:: ~~"-= ~-=:;:-:=:""'1-..
............................... II ...................,......, WI 1J".........................
-.-
~=':l~:r:-,:",:.' :.. ~corr:l
\11, ..... ..... ....".... _ al Ole Iacolilln 01
all bu..... U an", ..... .. _ toid land.
Oat" WI 12UI dB, Ill' ... 2002
!UIlE LAlID __ u.c,
""
MartI S. "-,_, lLL.$. M1M. Rat- No. t~
~.." I'. 2002 (a"lOJOul)
-
"'"
-
...
...
~n. Aullhar'. ~ MlIt;.l I. ... ,~_ and ca..'IOft\ pet CI Dac. NIIro
,,).... 173. Alldncw's MchiIIcln MlIt;.t 10 'trnparor'J "'" '-.ell __Wit,.. Doc. No.
.14312'6. (1"-'''' do'. ... _...1)
7.) VocallNl ..... Sit.... ..)Kt 10 ........1 Iar rnoIn.lllNW'a at 1'1111, ..... ,.. Oac. No,
....-
Exhibit C
I
I
I
I
I
_____-..1
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 16 JULY 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff; Council Liaison
Garfunkel, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Chair Bailey
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 4, 2002
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, approving the June 4, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0/1, with Borkon abstaining due to absence at that meeting.
1.
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SO FT
Applicant: Rick Bateson
Location: 6180 Murray Court
Vice Chair Pisula opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing. He also explained most items recommended for approval this evening would be placed on the
July 22, 2002, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further consideration unless specified
differently.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant was building a home at 6180 Murray Court in the RI-C, Single
Family Residential zoning district. He stated the applicant was requesting a Conditional use Permit for
Accessory Space over 1200 square feet to build a two-level attached garage. Director Nielsen went on to
explain the garage would be accessible to the front of the home at the front of the garage, and the lower
level was accessible through a side garage door. He noted the total square footage of the garage to be
approximately 4, 086 square feet above grade, and also characterized the building site to be comprised of
steep topography and a wetland area, thus, necessitating the placement of the house on the lot as far
forward as possible.
Director Nielsen also stated the request complied with all four criteria for a Conditional Use Permit, and
no additional landscaping would be required as part of the recommendation for approval.
Rick and Sue Bateson, 6180-Murray Court, were in attendance. Mr. Bateson stated there was no hardship
involved in this request; however, he would simply like a large garage for his home. He stated he had
owned the lot for ten years and had given a great deal of thought to the placement of the house and
requested garage on the site. He also noted the neighbors to be complimentary with regard to the
proposal for the site.
Vice Chair Pisula closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 10 P.M.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
July 16,2002
Page 2 of8
. Commissioner Gagne conftrmed the location of the driveway to be within the allowable setback area of
the lot.
.
.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit, subject to
staff recommendations, for Rick and Sue Bateson, 6180 Murray Court. Motion passed 6/0.
Noting the time to be 7: 13 P.M., Vice Chair Pisula reviewed the procedures and criteria necessary for
approval of variance requests. He noted these criteria to be set forth by State statute, and noted the
evidence of hardship needed to be proven by the applicant.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE FOR PARKING LOT SETBACK AND
CURBING REQUIREMENTS
Applicant: Lake Fellowship Unitarian Church
Location: 24575 Glen Road
Vice Chair Pisula opened the Public Hearing at 7: 15 P.M.
Director Nielsen stated the Commission had held a Public Hearing to consider an after-the-fact
conditional use permit for a parking lot constructed by the Lake Fellowship Unitarian Church on their
property at 24575 Glen Road. He went on the explain the parking lot had been constructed within the
front yard setback area of the property, and that matter had been continued to July in order for church
representatives to determine whether a variance application or correction of the work was necessary. The
representatives had commissioned a soils engineer for soil testing in the vicinity of the parking area, and
had since decided to apply for a variance.
Findings by the soil engineer indicated the ground to the north of the current parking lot was not suitable
to support either the parking lot or continuous poured concrete curbing required by the Shorewood
Zoning Code. The applicants had placed large logs at the perimeter of the parking area with dirt
backftlled behind them, in lieu of curbing. These ftndings were also in accordance with recommendations
of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) regarding the preference for a "sheeting" type of
stormwater runoff versus directed runoff found through a curb and gutter system. Screening was
considered adequate for the site. Director Nielsen recommended approval of the variance, given the
ftndings of the soil engineer, however, the recommendation should include a provision of the parking lot
being striped and the three parcels of land on which the church was located being legally combined.
Completion of the items was recommended by end of July.
Scott Gauer, 3820 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, representing the Lake Fellowship Unitarian Church,
thanked the Commission for continuance of this matter. He stated the conditions of striping and lot
combination would require Board consideration and a meeting was not probable prior to the end of July.
He also wondered about the rationale behind combining the lots and the potential ramiftcations for such
an action. Director Nielsen explained the church and parking lot currently straddle property lines of the
three lots comprising the church property. He stated the purpose of the combination to make the site
conforming according to City Zoning regulations. In addition, he explained the process of lot
combination included writing a letter to Hennepin County for such an action to take place. Should the
Church ever decide to sell the land for development purposes, the lot could then be replatted and lots
subdivided to RI-C zoning guidelines at that time. Director Nielsen also stated the end of August would
be ample time to resolve these matters through Board resolution for the church.
Alex Wagenaar, 890 Fox Court, Chanhassan, expressed concern for the ability to replat and subdivide the
lots as he had negative results with a similar matter in a different state. Director Nielsen clarifted the
issue to remedy the concern.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
July 16,2002
Page 3 of 8
. Vice Chair Pisula closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:28 P.M.
Commissioner Gagne stated he lived in that area for some time, and originally the site had been a swamp
area that had been filled in over time as the area developed. He also agreed with the lot combination,
noting if the land could not sustain a parking lot, it was improbable that it could sustain development of
homes.
Commissioner White questioned whether the logs serving as curbing around the perimeter should be
staked to maintain location. Director Nielsen explained they had been backfilled to help maintain
location, however, replacement and maintenance of the logs would need to be a condition of the
Conditional Use Permit approval.
Commissioner Woodruff suggested the maintenance of landscaping should also be included as a
condition of approval for the permit.
Borkon moved, Woodruff seconded, recommending approval of a variance and Conditional Use
Permit for a parking lot setback, subject to staff recommendations and the combination of the three
parcels and striping of the parking lot area to be completed by August 31, 2002; continued upkeep
and maintenance, as well as the staking, of curb logs around the parking lot area; continued upkeep
and maintenance of landscaping on site.
Motion passed 6/0.
.
3.
7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Dennis and Laura Dvorak
Location: 5670 Echo Road
Director Nielsen explained the applicants had requested a setback variance to construct an attached two-
car garage on their property at 5670 Echo Road. The property was zoned Single Family Residential, and
contained approximately 11,721 square feet of area. In addition to the substandard lot area, the lot was
six feet narrower than the zoning district allowed and had a parallelogram shape.
The proposed garage measured 22' x 26' and was to be constructed in front of an existing small single-
car garage attached to the south end of the home. The request necessitated a six-foot variance to the side
yard setback requirement. Also, the applicants proposed converting the existing garage into a family
room, extending four feet beyond what existed currently. The existing house contained approximately
1348 square feet of floor are, including the garage. The addition would add 653 square feet to the
footprint of the house. Existing hardcover for the site was 33.6 percent, however, the applicants proposed
reducing the hardcover by installing landscape fabric where plastic currently existed.
.
In analysis, Director Nielsen noted the house did not meet setbacks on the west and north sides of the lot,
thus, leaving the only expansion of the home to be on the east side of the property. The new garage
would be 43 feet from the front property line. Director Nielsen further explained the applicant's request
seemed justified according the variance criteria. He noted the substandard area of the lot to be aggravated
by its shape. He also noted the presence of a two-car garage was commonly enjoyed by most residential
properties in the City. With regard to granting variances, he stated the criteria stated the variance must be
minimized to the extent possible. To this extent, the expansion of the old garage to increase the family
room size was not justified, and he recommended the existing south end of the structure remain as it
currently existed. Additional landscaping was not required.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
July 16,2002
Page 4 of8
. Laura Dvorak, applicant, stated her main concern was for room needed to accommodate the size of her
growing family. She stated the family room, as it currently existed, would only allow for a 12' width and
she stated it seemed logical to make it four feet longer and flush with the side of her proposed garage.
Seeing no one present wishing to further comment on this case, Vice Chair Pisula closed the Public
Testimony portion ofthe Public Hearing at 7:48 P.M.
Commissioners clarified expansion areas in the buildable area of the lot, and also noted changes to the
property lines as part of the County Road 19 project were not expected.
Commissioner Borkon questioned why the four feet could not be granted, as it seemed a logical part of
this request. Director Nielsen explained it would be adding to the variance request, rather than
minimizing it, and would also go against policy and precedent.
Vice Chair Pisula stated the issue was about reasonable use of the site, and reasonable use could be
maintained without the additional four feet of family room space being requested.
.
Commissioner Borkon stated she believed the criteria for granting a variance is subject to interpretation.
She stated she thought it was unfortunate a person could not develop their own property logically due to
the interpretation of the criteria. Additionally, she noted it would be cost prohibitive for the applicant's to
expand their living space into the buildable area of the lot, given the floor plan of the house and the egress
windows on the lower level that would need to be removed and compensated for elsewhere in the
structure. She stated that, at times it seemed, by not granting a variance, that the Commission
unintentionally developed a hardship; thereby creating a criteria for variance.
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, recommending approval of the setback variance, subject to
staff recommendations, for a garage for Dennis and Laura Dvorak, 5670 Echo Road.
Commissioner Borkon requested the motion be split in to two separate actions.
Without objection from the maker and seconder of the motion, the motion was amended.
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, recommending approval of the Setback Variance, subject to
Staff recommendations 1-6, of the Staff Memorandum, dated July 11,2002, from Director Nielsen
to the Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council, regarding a request for Dennis and Laura
Dvorak, 5670 Echo Road. Motion passed 6/0.
Woodruff moved, White seconded, recommending denial of a Setback Variance for the four-foot
addition of the family room for Dennis and Laura Dvorak, 5670 Echo Road. Motion passed 4/2,
with Borkon and Gagne dissenting.
4. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Marlow Peterson
Location: 4985 St. Alban's Bay Road
.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant had requested a setback variance to construct an extension of his
existing attached garage on his property at 4985 St. Alban's Bay Road. The property was zoned Single-
Family ResidentiallShoreland and contained 8012 square feet of area. The proposed garage addition
measured 16' x 16' and would extend from the rear ofthe existing garage in tandem fashion. The request
necessitated an eight-foot variance to the rear yard setback requirement and a seven-foot variance to the
side yard requirement. The lot was nonconforming, with respect to maximum impervious surface, having
35.6 percent of the lot covered where 25 percent was allowed. The proposed garage would increase
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
July 16,2002
Page 5 of 8
. hardcover by approximately 256 square feet, resulting in hardcover of 38.8 percent, and a variance of
nearly 14 percent. Director Nielsen went on to explain the applicant had also requested approval to build
a covered porch and deck on the front of the home. While setbacks were not an issue, the hardcover
would increase to 39.6 percent with the porch and deck additions.
With regard to the variance criteria, Director Nielsen stated the lot was considered nonconforming due to
the small size of the lot. In addition, this size affected both building setback compliance and hardcover.
The site was examined for opportunities to reduce the amount of hardcover on the lot, and all impervious
surfaces were considered necessary to the use of the property. He also stated other buildings- in the
neighborhood were closer to the rear lot line than the required setbacks allowed, and the proposed garage
would not be out of character for the surrounding area. He noted there would be no alternative to
achieving a two-car garage on the site, and the applicant, even in this request, would be forced to park
cars end to end. No additional landscaping was recommended for the site. While Staff recommended the
request to expand the garage be granted as presented, the front porch and deck were recommended for
repair or replacement, and no further expansion of those areas was recommended at this time.
Marlow Peterson, applicant, stated he would be willing to reduce the front porch area for expansion from
the proposed 8' x8' to 5' x 7'. He stated he would really like to cover the stoop, as it was quite cold in the
winter. He appreciated the recommendation for approval of the garage addition, and stated he believed
the hardcover could be reduced through the change in porch area.
Director Nielsen stated if the hardcover would not be increased with a reduced entryway, he had no
problem with a recommendation for approval for that project as well.
. Vice Chair Pisula closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8: 18 P.M.
Commissioner Gagne stated he liked the reduction in porch size and hardcover. Commissioner Woodruff
also agreed.
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, recommending approval of a Setback Variance, subject to Staff
recommendations for a garage and front porch, not to exceed 5' x7' in size, for Marlow Peterson,
4985 St. Alban's Bay Road. Motion passed 6/0.
5. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
ESTABLISHING INTERIM USE PERMIT REGULATIONS
Vice Chair Pisula opened the Public Hearing at 8:23 P.M.
Director Nielsen presented a draft of Interim Conditional Use Permit regulations for a Zoning Text
amendment, eXplaining this item and the next item on the Agenda were related to this matter. He defined
an Interim Conditional Use as a temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a
particular event, or until the use was no longer allowed by zoning regulations. The permit of the same
name would be for that temporary use. Director Nielsen then provided examples and history of drafting
the interim use ordinance. He also noted variances were not a legal way to deal with use issues. He also
noted that in any case a condition of approval would require the execution of a development agreement
setting forth conditions of approval and specifying the termination date of the interim use.
.
Director Nielsen then reviewed the draft Interim Use Ordinance conditions of approval, violations, and
revocations.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
July 16, 2002
Page 6 of8
6.
8:15 P.M PUBLIC HEARING - INTERIM USE PERMIT
Applicant: Dan Ohland
Location: 25070 Smithtown Road
Vice Chair Pisula opened the Public Hearing at 8:31 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant owned the property at 25070 Smithtown Road. In addition to his
home, the applicant used the property to operate his landscape excavating business. Although that use
was allowed previously as part of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), it had become a nonconforming use
under current zoning regulations. As such, the business was considered to be "grandfathered in,"
however any kind of expansion to the business or the residential use of the property was prohibited while
the business existed on the site.
The applicant now wished to either substantially remodel and increase the size of the house or build a new
house on the site. While he was not yet willing to quit or relocate the business, he had indicated a
willingness to do so in three years. As a result, the City Attorney suggested the use of an interim use
ordinance to accommodate the applicant's plans for the site.
Director Nielsen went on to explain the property was zoned Single Family Residential and contained
approximately 84, 410 square feet in area. The property was irregularly shaped, having no frontage on
Smithtown Road, and access through an easement across the property to the south. In addition to the
applicant's house, the property was occupied by a 30' x40' accessory building used as a shop for his
business. Heavy equipment was parked on the north side of the shop and landscape materials were
stockpiled elsewhere on the property.
Director Nielsen stated the interim use provisions would typically be used to allow temporary uses of
land, pending some higher future use. While some cities use this type of ordinance to provide for short-
term events, such as festivals or recreational events, he anticipated the City would utilize the interim use
ordinance for control and elimination of nonconforming uses. While CUPs continue with the land,
interim CUPs have a specific termination date. He further explained Mr. Ohland's alternative to
obtaining an interim use permit included building a new house elsewhere and selling off the business in it
current location, thereby allowing a nonconforming use to continue indefinitely. An interim use permit
could provide a contractual agreement whereby the nonconformity could be eliminated within a specified
period of time. It was recommended the excavation business would be discontinued within three years of
the dated the applicant received a building permit for the construction on the house. Director Nielsen
cited the approval of an interim conditional use permit ordinance and interim conditional use permit for
the applicant to be a reasonable approach to solving Mr. Ohland's problem, while at the same time
expediting the elimination of a nonconforming use of residential property. The condition of approval
would be that the business would be discontinued within three years of the applicant obtaining a building
permit. He also noted this request included a request for Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space
over 1200 Square Feet.
Director Nielsen also stated he had received calls and a letter from neighbors in the area expressing
concern for the noise from operating the business on the site as the noise would extend beyond normal
business hours. He suggested hours of operation for the site to be Monday through Friday, from 7:00
A.M. to 7:00 P.M., and Saturdays from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., and noted the City Attorney had
recommended the addition of these conditions to the interim CUP for this case.
Dan and Keelo Ohland, applicants, were in attendance. Mr. Ohland stated he operated a snowplow in the
winter months in addition to the landscaping and excavating business on site making the limitation to
hours of operation a concern for him. He stated he was wanting to trade something to get something in
return as it would work well for all parties involved. He wanted to move the business to a new location
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
July 16, 2002
Page 7 of8
. within the next three years and this interim Conditional Use Permit would allow him to set up and operate
his business elsewhere.
Vice Chair Pisula closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:45 P.M.
Commissioner Gagne stated his relatives had had business dealings with the applicant, however, he did
not perceive this to be a conflict of interest for this case as he had not been involved in those dealings. He
also stated the business may have been in its present location prior to neighbors that moved in. If this was
the case, people need to be aware that they moved in next to a business operation. He suggested the
Commission not further complicate the matter by dealing with the issue of hours of operation, as the
business would be gone in three years.
Mr. Ohland explained rock was stored in the back of the lot, and a neighbor was interested in purchasing
that portion of land from him. This action of sale would quiet the area. In addition, he noted the larger
trucks generally work in Edina, Minnesota, and there were situational issues were large noisy trucks
would enter the site occasionally.
Commissioner Packard questioned Mr. Ohland as to the anticipated necessary hours of operation. Mr.
Ohland explained his process of operation, noting rocks were occasionally dumped and loud noises did
sometimes occur should maintenance and repair of the trucks need to take place, such as in the event of a
flat tire needing replacement before morning. He stated he did not want to restrict his hours of operation,
but simply wanted to transition the business smoothly to another location in a different area.
.
Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, recommending approval of a draft Interim Conditional Use
Permit Ordinance. Motion passed 6/0.
White moved, Gagne seconded, recommending approval of an Interim Conditional Use Permit,
subject to Staff recommendations and the stipulation for removal of the business on the site to be
completed by three years from the date of building permit issuance, for Mr. Dan Ohland, 25070
Smithtown Road.
Commissioner Packard stated she liked the idea of using an interim CUP in this case, but remained
concern for the hours of operation.
Keelo Ohland stated they had been working with the neighbors to maintain positive relationships within
the area.
Motion passed 6/0.
Vice Chair Pisula recessed the meeting at 9:07 P.M., and reconvened the meeting at 9: 12 P.M.
7. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION ORDINANCE
.
Director Nielsen stated the Commission was nearing the end of the Organized Refuse Collection process
by review of this ordinance. He stated the recycling date for the City was to remain firm, however, the
refuse haulers were willing to be flexible and align pick-up dates for refuse with recycling in the City. He
then reviewed the proposed ordinance. With regard to weight restrictions on the roadways during certain
times of the year, Director Nielsen explained the City Public Works Director could place weight
restrictions on permits, and should this not be reasonably followed, the ordinance could easily be
amended to include provisions regarding weight restrictions.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
July 16,2002
Page S ofS
. Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, recommending approval of an Ordinance Amendment for
Chapter 507 of the City Zoning Code to restrict days of refuse collection to coincide with recycling
services no later than October 1, 2002. Motion passed 6/0.
8. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen noted three requests for Conditional Use Permits were slated for the August 6, 2002,
Planning Commission Meeting.
10. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
Commissioner Gagne reported on matters considered and actions taken at the June 10,2002, and June 24,
2002, Regular City Council Meetings (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). Commissioner
White reported on matters considered and actions taken at the July 8, 2002. Regular City Council Meeting
(as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Liaison to LCEC
.
Commissioner Woodruff reported the Land Conservation and Environment Committee's sunset date had
been extended until August 31, 2002. After that time, an ad hoc committee, consisting of one Park
Commissioner, one Planning Commissioner, and one City Councilmember, would act in its place.
SLUC
There was nothing reported from the Sensible Land Use Coalition at this time.
Other
There were no further reports.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, adjouring the Planning Commission Meeting of July 16,2002,
at 9:35 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, and Woodruff; Council Liaison
Garfunkel, Engineer Brown, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioners Pisula and White
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 16,2002
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, approving the July 16, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as amended on Page 4, Paragraph 6, Sentence 1, change" criteria remained subject" to
"criteria for granting a variance is subject to interpretation," and Sentence 2, change "develop
owned property" to "develop their own property' and omit "in this case" from same sentence, and
adding "She stated that at times, it seemed by not granting a variance, that the Commission
unintentionally developed a hardship; thereby creating a criteria for variance. Motion passed
4/0/1, with Bailey abstaining due to absence at that meeting.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARlNG-C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SO FT
Applicant: Jon and Julie Thornberg
Location: 5525 Grant Lorenz Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He also stated matters recommended for approval to Council this evening would appear on the August 26,
2002, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant had applied for a Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) to construct a
detached garage on his property located at 5525 Grant Lorenz Road. Director Nielsen further explained
the floor area of the new garage, when combined with the existing attached garage and another accessory
building on the site brought the total area of accessory space on the property over 1200 square feet. The
property was zoned Single Family Residential, and contained 39,449 square feet of area. The proposed
garage measures 24' x 26' and contains 624 square feet which would bring the total area of accessory
space on the site to 1458 square feet. Access to the new garage will be provided by an existing driveway
loop in the front of the house.
With regard to meeting four criteria for granting a c.u.P., Director Nielsen noted the request met all
criteria. However, he also noted the applicant's survey demonstrated impervious surface, as proposed,
would reach 36 percent of the lot area where 33 percent is allowed. Additionally, he noted the survey
indicated a significant amount of the landscaped area had plastic under it for weed control. Should that
plastic be replaced with landscape fabric, the amount of hardcover would be reduced to 25 percent.
Drainage and landscaping were not considered to be issues of concern given the size of the property. He
also noted the new garage to be similar in character to the existing house and outbuilding. He
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
August 6, 2002
Page 2 of8
recommended the C.U.P. be granted subject to the reduction of hardcover on the site to be at least 33
percent of the lot area.
Jon and Julie Thornberg, applicants, were in attendance. Mr. Thornberg stated he had drawn on the
survey the location of landscape fabric previously installed. He noted the accurate hardcover on the site
to be 31.1 percent currently.
Seeing no one present wishing to address the Commission on this matter, Chair Bailey closed the public
testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 11 P.M.
Chair Bailey questioned whether the proposed project had the support of neighbors in the area. Mr.
Thornberg responded affirmatively, noting all adjoining neighbors were in support of the project as well.
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit,
subject to Staff recommendations, for Jon and Julie Thornberg, 5525 Grant Lorenz Road. Motion
passed 5/0.
2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. AMENDMENT FOR STORAGE SHED
Applicant: David Olson, rep. D.C. Wakefield, et. al. Trustees
Location: 24000 Highway 7
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:13 P.M.
Director Nielsen stated the applicant, representing the owners of the office building at 24000 State
Highway 7, had requested an after-the-fact revised c.u.P. to build a utility shed on the property. The
shed was built in the northwest corner of the parking lot at the rear of the building. This location did not
meet the setback requirements for the Residential/Commercial zoning district, and the applicant proposed
relocating it to the northeastern corner of the western parking lot. Since the office building existed
pursuant to a C.U.P. issued in 1981, a revision to the c.u.P. was necessary. Director Nielsen went on to
explain the building complied with the zoning district setback requirements. Also, despite differences in
calculations shown on the site plan, the shed did not take up required parking area, nor did it adversely
affect the area. He also noted the application afforded the City the opportunity to correct an existing
problem on the site as some landscaping on the west side of the parking lot had died, creating a gap in the
buffer. He then recommended, as a condition of approval, that this area be filled in with arborvitae, the
number and size of which would be determined at the time a building permit was issued for the building.
Subject to this requirement, he recommended approval of this amendment.
Dave Olson, representative applicant, apologized for the misunderstanding of the specifications regarding
requirements for a building permit.
Colleen Fisher, 6175 Riviera Lane, stated she was the propertyowner immediately west of the subject
property and had lived there for ten years. In that time, she stated, there had not been any arborvitae there
and requested the Commission consider the addition of trees and fencing to the site as part of the
conditions for approval. She stated there was a great deal of noise, and headlights would shine into the
house. She believed a fence and trees would buffer more of the noise than the current landscaping, and
she would like to see additional buffer as well as filling the gap of arborvitae in the current landscaping.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M.
Commissioner Gagne stated he would be agreeable to restoration or completion of original landscaping
with the addition of maintenance of landscaping as a condition of approval. However, he believed any
further requirements be reasonably related to the shed. Should any violations of the origina11andscaping
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
August 6, 2002
Page 3 of8
.
be remiss, more requests could be made of the applicant regarding compliance. Commissioner Woodruff
agreed, stating the best option seemed to be restoration of original landscaping.
Ms. Fisher stated she would rather see a fence than restoration of original landscaping. Mr. Olson stated
the cost of a fence to be approximately three times that of landscaping, thereby making the removal of the
shed far more cost effective with no need to restore any landscaping.
Chair Bailey stated he believed restoration of the original landscaping to be an adequate solution.
Commissioner Borkon agreed, noting the fencing should not be required.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit
Amendment for a Utility Shed, subject to replacement of landscaping arborvitae and maintenance
of all landscaping in the future, for Dave Olson, rep. D.C. Wakefield, et. aI. Trustees, 24000 State
Highway 7. Motion passed 5/0.
3. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY
Applicant: Shorewood Economic Development Authority
Location: 24140 Smithtown Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M.
.
Director Nielsen explained that in January of this year, the City amended the Shorewood Comprehensive
Plan to address the construction of a combined fire department and police department facility at 24140
Smithtown Road. TSP One, Inc., the architects for the project had made application for the necessary
C.U.P. for the facility. He noted the presence of Nick Ruehl, project architect, at this meeting.
Director Nielsen stated the subject property measured 249' x 1261', and contained approximately 6.85
acres and was zoned Single and Two-Family Residential. The north half of the site was also subject to
provisions of the Shore land District. Surrounding land uses and zoning to the north were noted to be the
LRT Trail, and then Single-Family Residential in Tonka Bay; zoned residential; to the west were noted
the Shorewood Public Work Facility and one single-family residence, zoned Single and Two-Family
Residential; to the south were noted County Road 19, and then the Southshore Senior Community Center;
zoned Residential/Commercial; to the east were noted Shorewood Lane and then two-family residential,
zoned Single and Two-Family Residential. He went on to explain the proposed building and accessory
parking areas were located on the southerly half of the site. The proposed building contained 28,603
square feet of area on the lower level, including the fire equipment bays. The upper level would have
25,917 square feet, including the parking garage for the police department. The total amount of
hardcover proposed for the site was approximately 35 percent, well under the 66 percent allowed for
public facilities. Director Nielsen then went on to explain how the Public Safety Facility complied with
the requirements ofthe Shorewood Zoning Code.
.
With regard to setbacks, Director Nielsen stated the proposed site plan complied with all setback
requirements for the Single and Two-Family Residential zoning district. He noted the 35-foot side yard,
as well as the 35-foot front yard setback would be retained as green space. The building height complied
with the 35-foot height limitation, as it was two stories. This height was noted to be the result of the site
topography, tall interior spaces, and the direction to include a pitched roof. Parking on the site plan
provided a total of 70 parking spaces, and was considered adequate for the most intense use of the
building. He noted a condition of approval should be no on-street parking on Shorewood Lane or on the
Public Works access drive.
Director Nielsen noted Engineer Brown would address grading and drainage issues, as there appeared to
be some items unresolved.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
August 6, 2002
Page 4 of8
.
With regard to tree preservation and landscaping, Director Nielsen explained the trees in the middle of the
site would most likely need to be removed, as would the smaller trees along the Public Works access
drive. He stated consideration should be given to transplanting these smaller trees to other locations on
site. The wooded area on the north end of the site would be relatively unaffected, as only one-half the site
was being altered. He went on to explain 56 replacement trees were required under City policy. The
landscape plan proposed those 56 replacement trees as well as twenty additional five-foot Techny
Arborvitae bordering the police parking area. Landscaping of the upright ornamental shrub to be planted
in the landscape planter on the south end of the building needed specification and was considered an
important element of the south elevation of the facility.
Director Nielsen also explained four areas of concern with respect to noise for the facility. As firefighters
were called by radio or paging system, there would not be a need for a siren on the building. Fire engines
would not turn on sirens until they would be on County Road 19. Additionally, the police department
would be operating a firing range in the lower level of the building. He noted the construction and
insulation of the building, as well as the dampening of the ventilation system was critical to muffle
sounds. The police department also intended to have an area inside the building for dogs. An intent, if
any, should be indicated as to whether dogs would be kenneled outside. Presumably when dogs were
outside, they would be in constant control of their handlers. Finally, the mechanical equipment, including
an emergency generator, must have sound attenuation so as not to become a nuisance to nearby residents.
.
With regard to lighting, he noted, it would be necessary for security reasons to have some lighting on the
residential side of the building. These lights should be downcast, mounted as low as possible, with cutoff
fixtures that would not allow the light source to be seen from adjoining residential properties. Trees along
the east side of the building should be strategically planted to minimize the effect of lighting.
Refuse containers would be contained in a covered enclosure on the east side of the building. Signage
indicated as part of the plan included the location of a monument sign located approximately in the
middle of the site in front of the southerly parking area. It was also expected some additional directional
signage would be necessary. For example, the exit on the county road would be exit only.
Director Nielsen concluded by stating the use of the site was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
including the recommendation that activities be oriented toward the Public Works side of the site.
Traffic from Shorewood Lane was limited to return trips of fire trucks ant to firefighters arriving on the
site. Emergency vehicles leaving the site would be limited to a driveway onto County Road 19. Director
Nielsen also noted the anticipated use of signalization on County Road 19 alerting drivers and restricting
traffic flow during emergencies. He also noted the attendance of Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Chief
Mark DuCharme.
Engineer Brown briefly chronicled the background of the 6.85 acre site, noting the site sloped both to the
north and south from a high point near the southerly third of the lot. Existing topography varied
extensively, and the site was open with mature trees scattered throughout the site. He then reviewed
issues related to access, right-of-way, and easements, as well as grading and drainage, and sanitary sewer
and water service.
.
Engineer Brown noted the site to be challenging, as it was long and narrow, making it difficult to
accommodate the necessary turning movements of the larger fire engines. In addition, Staff had
recommended emergency vehicles leaving the site had to do so by turning onto County Road 19, and not
Shorewood Lane in effort to minimize noise and inconvenience to residents along Shorewood Lane.
Other needs associated with the driveway located 75 feet east from the intersection of Shorewood Lane
and County Road 19, included the use of a drive through circulation pattern for the fire apparatus bays,
for ease of entry and exit of larger vehicles. The proposed design allowed for construction of three
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
August 6, 2002
Page 5of8
.
separate driveways for the facility. The main entrance to the building for the general public and police
officers would be located on the west side of the building, and access would be gained through the Public
Works facility. Staff was recommending an access easement be compiled in favor of the subject site for
use of the Public Works facility driveway.
The second driveway accessed County Road 19. Engineer Brown explained Hennepin County
representatives had reluctantly, after a great deal of discussion, agreed to allow access from the site
directly onto County Road 19, if the driveway was used for emergency vehicles exiting the site
responding to an emergency. Additionally, the County agreed to allow construction of a surmountable
median design on County Road 19 to help channelize traffic. All other trips would have to utilize the
main entrance off the Public Works driveway or on third proposed driveway on Shorewood Lane. This
third driveway was 60 feet in width to allow fire trucks to align with the apparatus bays within a short
driving distance.
Grading and drainage for the site also proved challenging. Grading would provide significant amounts of
material generated by the placement of the building. In review, Engineer Brown suggested the material
be placed further north of the proposed grading in effort to minimize cost by reducing the amount of
material to be hauled away from the site, while maximizing the potential for any future development of
the site.
.
Engineer Brown also explained the site was located within the Gideon's Bay subwatershed of Lake
Minnetonka, and was part of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) on a larger scale. Staff
had been working with the MCWD to provide rate control and to consider the feasibility of providing a
water quality pond within the Gideon Glen project, in exchange for a dry pond on the public safety site.
Consultants to the MCWD, however, were expected to recommend against this exchange, and therefore a
rate control pond would be required for the site.
Engineer Brown also explained sanitary sewer service was available on the south side of County Road 19.
Permission needed to be secured from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES)
division, requesting the ability to make use of the existing utility owned and operated by MCES. Also, a
permit would need to be secured from Hennepin County allowing construction of the utility to cross
County Road 19. He anticipated the County would require this pipe be placed within a casing pipe. He
went on to explain Shorewood municipal water service was not available to the site, but water service
would be supplied through the extension of Tonka Bay water service provided to the easterly boundary of
the Public Works facility. This service would be governed by an existing cooperative agreement between
the two municipalities governing all service extensions throughout the City. Plans also indicated storm
sewer and watermain crossings would intersect the retaining wall along the west side of the site. Any
crossings of the retaining wall were to be placed within a casing pipe extending ten feet either side of the
wall to prevent unnecessary tear down of the retaining wall should the utility need repair.
Of particular concern to Engineer Brown, was the challenge to the timing of construction of this project in
coordination of reconstruction of County Road 19 in that area.
As a result of numerous factors, Engineer Brown recommended the application review be continued to the
next Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2002, to allow resolution of these issues
.
Eric Rousar, 5475 Shorewood Lane, and adjacent property owner, thanked the Fire District Chief and
local firefighters for all their heroic efforts, but stated he had criticism for the site. He expressed concern
for the driveway entrance on Shorewood Lane to the site as there were many small children in the area
and he was concerned for the use of larger trucks as well as the firefighters arriving with all due diligence.
Also, he was concerned for the anticipated noise from the firing range. He stated he believed the facility
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
August 6, 2002
Page 6 of8
.
to be palatial and beautiful, but wondered if there was to be any additional future development planned
for the site.
Ron Rousar, 5585 Shorewood Lane, expressed concern and frustration with the perceived changes to
proposed plans for the site. He stated he was very supportive of the police and fire departments, but
found the design confusing as it seemed not a lot of thought had been given to the residents in the
immediate neighborhood. He was concerned about the noise of the firing range, removal of shrubbery
and perceived lack of landscaping, and traffic on County Road 19 attempting a left hand turn when fire
trucks were returning to the bay area. He also expressed disappointment with the current house on the
site as it had been burned in a training exercise, and he noted the presence of juveniles on the site as well
as the lack of aesthetics. He also questioned why this site had been chosen if it was so difficult to work
with in the design and construction of the facility.
Jean Tisdale, 85 Brentway Avenue, Tonka Bay, Minnesota, expressed concern for any construction to the
north end of the property. She stated she would like to see a buffer left on the north end of the property.
Robert DeYoung, 5570 Shorewood Lane, stated there were many children in the area, and he was
concerned for the driveway entrance location on Shorewood Lane as well as noise from the firing range,
dogs on site, and general safety surrounding the entrances to the site.
Jeff Anderson, 95 Brentwood Avenue, stated he was in agreement with Ms. Tisdale's concern and was
concerned the landscaping buffer would diminish over time on the north end of the property.
.
Ron Rousar also questioned the long-term plan for the site.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:20 P.M.
Commissioner Gagne questioned the reason the mechanicals were positioned near residential property,
and stated he believed signalization to stop traffic at the County Road 19 intersection with Country Club
Road and Smithtown Road to be critical to the safety of the residents in the area.
Chair Bailey questioned Engineer Brown about the necessity of the flow through design for the apparatus
bays as well as the grading differential on the sites. Engineer Brown stated Chief DuCharme would
address the design of the apparatus bays, and the steep grade between the sites made an ingress/egress
onto the Public Works driveway inappropriate.
In response to Commissioner Borkon's questions, Engineer Brown stated the County Road 19 project had
been expanded to address the sight lines and distances from the area immediately east of the Smithtown
Crossings Shopping Center to Shorewood Lane. Commissioner Borkon also questioned whether the
driveway on Shorewood Lane could be moved closer to County Road 19. Engineer Brown stated this
issue could be reexamined, however, he cited problems with issued related to the fire trucks being able to
get into the driveway from an entrance near the road. Also, he stated should there be any traffic stacked
on Shorewood Lane waiting to enter County Road 19, additional hazards would be created by having a
fire truck waiting to enter the site. Commissioner Borkon also questioned the need for placement of the
maintenance area at the south end of the apparatus bays versus the north end, thereby avoiding the
necessary turning difficulty.
.
Director Nielsen stated additional landscaping could be considered to further screen the house across the
street from the driveway.
Chair Bailey stated he was concerned for the responders to enter the site from the Shorewood Lane
entrance.
~
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
August 6, 2002
Page 70f8
.
Director Nielsen explained that when compared with other potential for growth on that site, such as town
homes, volume on the roadway would be less than other alternative uses of the site. He also stated
firefighters were in the business of safety and would most likely use safe driving tactics to arrive at the
site appropriately.
EPD Chief DuCharme explained the driveway on Shorewood Lane was also being placed in the flattest
location as possible to align with the apparatus bays. He also requested the Commission consider the
implications of erratic driving patterns of firefighters attempting to arrive at the station as they currently
live and drive through residential areas and had the same potential for ticketing by the police as any other
resident. He went on to explain the EPD maintained the fire trucks themselves with respect to minor
maintenance items, however, there were times when a truck must be repaired at the station by a mobile
repair service. This required the truck to be out of the working area, and thus necessitated placement at
the end of the bays. He further stated he believed very strongly in the philosophy behind providing drive
through apparatus bays. He cited safety as being the main issue warranting this design. He stated a great
deal of effort had been put into the design with thoughts of response and safety for all. He also stated the
building had been designed to fit into the hill and efficient use of space had been planned.
.
Nick Ruehl, architect for the project from TSP One, Inc., explained approximately six site alternatives
had been developed with regard to site topography and grade differential. These designs had been
working with constraints of good design practices, as well as all ordinances and governing regulations.
He went on to explain representatives from Hennepin County, when discussing the potential for any
egress onto County Road 19, eliminated almost all previous design alternatives. This design was the
culmination of a great deal of effort and thoughts of many people involved in this process.
With regard to the building, he explained there was a balance of public and private spaces to be achieved.
Private spaces were to be placed on the lower level of the design and public spaces above. He stated the
concrete walls and insulated ductwork could be buffered enough so that the firing range would not
adversely affect the neighborhood. The emergency generator would sound during short periods of time
during the day for testing once a month and during emergencies, such as a power outage. He also stated
the maintenance apparatus bay belonged on the end of the building, and noted there would be no outdoor
kennels for dogs, although further clarification would be made at the next meeting as to the use of the
kennel space inside.
Much discussion ensued regarding the lack of future plans for the site. Director Nielsen stated the intent
was to maintain the integrity of the current site as much as possible, and there were no future plans for
expansion that he was aware of at this time.
Mr. Ruehl explained the responders needed to be able to see the parking area as they were driving onto
Shorewood Lane, thus, the use of trees versus heavy shrubs had been utilized in the landscape plan for the
site. In response to Commissioner Gagne's question, he explained the mechanicals could be enclosed so
that no additional sound than those found in residential units could be achieved.
.
Commissioner Woodruff questioned the length of time the building was anticipated to serve the
community. Mr. Ruehl explained the building needed to achieve more than fifty years in its current
capacity, thus the use of low maintenance, high durability materials had been proposed. In addition the
shape and form of the building demonstrating a civic character had been planned to blend into the
residential neighborhood. He noted this project had been very carefully sculpted as all parties involved
were concerned for the size and scale of the building, and all thought this appropriate.
Commissioner Gagne clarified people would be on site twenty four hours a day, and prisoners would be
detained, but not held on site for longer than a limited number of hours.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
August 6, 2002
Page 8 of8
Chair Bailey expressed concern for the noise from the firing range, and questioned whether the loads
could be limited and noise levels quantified to achieve noise criteria.
Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, continuing this matter to the August 20, 2002, Planning
Commission Meeting. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Bailey explained public testimony would be taken at the next meeting as well, should anyone wish
to make further comment on this matter.
A brief discussion ensued as to the outcome of the current structure on the site and its removal.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there would be a Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit for a Public Safety
Facility continued from this evening as well as a Study Session including final discussion of all Planning
District Area Plans slated for the next Planning Commission Meeting Agenda on August 20, 2002.
6.
REPORTS
Liaison to Council
Commissioner Woodruff, reported for Commissioner White, on the July 22, 2002, Regular City Council
Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Liaison to LCEC
Commissioner Woodruff stated there would be a meeting on August 13, 2002 of the Land Conservation
and Environment Committee, thus, there was nothing new to report.
SLUC
There was nothing to report on at this time.
Other
There were no other reports.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August 6,
2002, at 9:43 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff;
Council Liaison Garfunkel, Engineer Brown, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, approving the August 6, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0/2, with Pisula and White abstaining due to absence at that
meeting.
1.
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY
Applicant: Shorewood Economic Development Authority
Location: 24140 Smithtown Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 P.M. He then briefly reviewed the Public Hearing
procedures being utilized in this meeting, noting this matter was a continuation of a Public Hearing held
on August 6, 2002. Should this matter be recommended for approval, it would be placed on the August
26, 2002, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further consideration and discussion.
Director Nielsen explained he would be reviewing only the outstanding issues of concern from the last
Public Hearing on this matter. In addition, he explained an Open House style meeting had been held to
discuss plans for the site immediately prior to this meeting. He thanked Excelsior Fire District (EFD)
Chief DuCharme, South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Chief Litsey, architect Nick
Ruehl of TSP One, Inc., and Engineer Brown for their efforts in providing resolution to areas of concern
throughout this planning process and especially in the past few weeks.
One of the areas of concern was landscaping on the site. Director Nielsen stated additional landscaping in
the form of 13 evergreen trees were being proposed for the easterly side of the site near the entrance drive
from Shorewood Lane. These trees were planned in effort to provide additional screening of the site from
the residence across the street from the entrance drive. Also, the southeast corner of the site would be
planted with primarily deciduous trees. Additional landscaping plantings were also planned for
mechanical area as well in effort to provide some muffling of sound and visual screening. He went on to
explain a concern had been heard regarding the 100' buffer of trees on the northern end of the property.
He suggested this condition could be placed on the site establishing a 100-foot buffer abutting the LRT
Trail. The only exception to this would be minimal work related to drainage toward the northwest corner
of the site.
With regard to the noise issues heard at the last Public Hearing, Director Nielsen stated the architect
suggested noise levels on the site could be kept to "residential levels" designated by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) standards that specified a noise level of 60 decibels (dBA) allowed
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
August 20, 2002
Page 2 of 5
.
from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. and 50 dBA in the nighttime hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. as
measured on the property line of the source. He noted the MPCA was willing to provide testing of these
noise levels. He suggested this provision be included as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit
(CU.P.). Furthermore he clarified the dogs be contained on site would include the occasional
impoundment of a few strays. No outdoor kennels were proposed.
Director Nielsen also cited past concerns with circulation on and near the site. He stated Staff had
suggested a small bus stop be created on the east side of Shorewood Lane to allow children to wait for the
bus off the street. A short segment of sidewalk was also recommended on the east side of the street so
pedestrian traffic would not conflict with the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety facility traffic. He
also stated firefighters were in the business of safety and only the apparatus trucks would be utilizing
Shorewood Lane to enter the site.
.
Engineer Brown briefly reviewed outstanding areas of concern from the last Public Hearing on this
matter. He noted many areas were successfully remedied in the past few weeks. With regard to runoff
requirements, he explained previous concern for revising the design to maintain the pre-developed runoff
rate for the site had been completed. As a result of findings of numerous hydraulic calculations, Staff and
consultants from WSB and Associates, Inc., concurred with the findings and recommendation that the
detention basin for the Shorewood Public Works facility be utilized for the site, versus constructing a
separate basin. He stated contours for that pond demonstrate the pond had more than adequate capacity
for the addition runoff in the area. The outlet for the pond would be revised to include a weir structure, to
regulate flow leaving the site. As a resulting issue, the storm sewer system along County Road 19 would
incur additional drainage. Mr. Ted Whitkowski, hydrologist for WSB and Associates, had reviewed the
system and concurred this system had adequate capacity for the added runoff.
Concerns regarding the driveway location off of Shorewood Lane were re-examined to explore moving
the driveway closer to County Road 19. Findings indicated, due to the grades and layout of the site, that
the proposed location would be the only feasible location for the driveway. He also cited the need for the
amount of area required for traffic movements of the design vehicles. Furthermore, this issue was
complicated by the fact that Hennepin County requirements stipulated the only allowable use of the
driveway off of County Road 19 was the exiting of emergency response vehicles in emergency situations.
As such, relocation of the driveway south of the presently proposed location would not provide adequate
space for the aerial fire truck to back out of the apparatus storage bay, and negotiate a turn onto
Shorewood Lane.
Grading on the site would provide excess earth material as a result of excavation of the lower level of the
building. Engineer Brown stated he believed some of the excess fill could be placed along the northerly
slope of the parcel. This was recommended as a cost savings measure only. Concerns were raised due to
perceived impacts to trees along the northerly slope. Staff recommended any material placed on the north
side of the lot would not encroach into the wooded areas of the site.
With regard to parking lot layout, Engineer Brown stated modifications had been made to curb alignments
recommended to facilitate routine maintenance of the site.
.
Utilities would need to cross the retaining wall on the site as part of the proposed construction plan.
Engineer Brown recommended any utility crossing with the retaining wall should be cased a minimum of
the height of the wall at the crossing on each side of the wall to permit maintenance or repair, without
demolition of the proposed retaining wall. Also, a fire flow test would need to be performed prior to
finalization of building design, by the applicant's engineer to verify adequate flow capacity for the fire
suppression system.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
August 20, 2002
Page 3 of 5
.
Staff recommended approval of the request for Conditional Use Permit, subject to preVIOUS
recommendations, with stipulated conditions.
Ron Rousar, 5585 Shorewood Lane, complimented the Director Nielsen, the Police and Fire Departments,
and the architect for the project, and especially consideration given to residents of Shorewood Lane. He
stated a remaining concern was for the people parking on the westerly side of the lane to watch their
children board the school bus in the morning. He anticipated significant congestion issues. Also, he
expressed continued concern for the placement of the emergency generator and mechanical equipment on
the site. He requested further consideration be given to moving these mechanicals to another part of the
building away from the residential portion of the building.
Hearing no one present wishing to speak further on this matter, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at 7:39 P.M.
The Commission agreed to discuss remaining issues of concern in the order presented this evening.
With regard to noise, Commissioner Gagne stated he remained concerned about the placement of the
mechanicals on the site, as it seemed to make sense to place them elsewhere. Commissioner Borkon
agreed, noting there would be an impact to the residential area nearby that could be alleviated or lessened
simply by moving them to a different part of the building. Commissioner Woodruff also agreed with
these issues of concern.
.
Mr. Ruehl stated the mechanicals could certainly be moved, although at this point in time, he was not
quite sure where would be the most logical place to move them. He stated noise attenuation measures
would be taken with the air conditioning units. He also explained the proposed design was an attempt to
balance cost and efficiency.
Director Nielsen clarified, in response to Commissioner Borkon's question, that canine units would not be
trained on site, nor would outdoor kennels be permitted as part of this request. Should this request arise at
a later date, it would require review and revision of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Borkon
stated she would like to see no outdoor kennels be placed as a condition of approval for the requested
c.u.P.
Commissioner Borkon stated she continued to be concerned about the location of the driveway especially
as it related to the placement of the bus stop. Engineer Brown explained the details of the situation,
noting there would be an increased shoulder area to be utilized for bussing, and site lines and distances
would be considerably better as a result of the direction of Hennepin County and plans prepared for the
County Road 19 project. Chair Bailey stated the current fire station was located in a very congested
residential/commercial area without problems. Mr. Ruehl stated the anticipated load for the driveway was
approximately 1.5 trips per day.
With regard to the engineering report, the Commission agreed the ponding issues were resolved to the
benefit of many. Commissioner Woodruff expressed concern for the amount of buffer being
recommended. She stated she would feel more comfortable with a total of 200 feet of buffer on the
northerly portion of the site, with the exception of work needed to address the pond structure.
.
Chair Bailey stated he would like to see access to the LRT through the Public Safety facility site. Chief
Litsey explained there was substantial security concerns for bringing people through the back of the site,
and it had been purposely designed that way. Good access to the trail was being provided as part of the
County Road 19 project through Timber Lane.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
August 20, 2002
Page 4 of5
.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject
to staff recommendations, and with conditions of excluding outdoor canine kennels and the natural
buffer for the northerly portion of the site be increased to 200 feet, for the Shorewood Economic
Development Authority, 24140 Smithtown Road. Motion passed 7/0.
Mr. Ruehl thanked the Commission for its efforts in reviewing these proposed plans. He stated very fine,
creative thought with due diligence had gone into preparation of the plans for the facility. He stated he
appreciated all efforts made to date by all parties involved in consideration of this matter, noting
extraordinary efforts had been made in a very short period of time due to the efforts of all.
2. PLANNING DISTRICT AREA PLANS
.
Director Nielsen distributed Planning District Data Sheets and texts for Planning Districts 8 and 10. He
noted Planning District No. 8 was bounded on the north by Galpin Lake, and the Shorewood/Excelsior
municipal border; to the east by Mill Street (County Road 82); to the south by the Shorewood/Chanhassan
municipal border; and to the west by State Highway 7. He noted the district was characterized by steep
terrain in certain areas as well as wetland basins. Further, he explained the current land use was
consistent with zoning for the district, including predominantly single-family residential housing; a small
office building at the comer of Chaska Road and Highway 7, and scattered vacant parcels. Proposed land
use included continuation of the existing land use pattern. He stated the district would be subject to
redevelopment if the larger single-family lots between Chaska Road and Highway 7 would convert over
time to two-family residences. Subdivision of parcels along Murray Street would depend upon
cooperation of landowners and access to backs of existing lots. He then noted the transportation and
circulation patterns as well as community facilities for the district.
With regard to Planning District No. 10, he noted this district to be bounded by Covington Road to the
north; Vine Hill Road to the east; Shorewood/Chanhassan municipal border to the south; and Silver Lake
to the west. Silver Lake was the dominant physical feature to this district with wetlands located to the
north and south of Silver Lake Trail. This district was fully developed, with single-family residential
zoning. Proposed land use for the future including continued maintenance of the current development
pattern. He noted there did not appear to be any prospect for significant redevelopment of the land.
Director Nielsen stated the final drafts for all planning districts would be reviewed at the September 24,
2002, Study Session Meeting of the Planning Commission. He requested Commissioners return any
comments to him prior to September 24, 2002, for revision to the drafts.
3. DISCUSS SENIOR HOUSING ISSUES
Director Nielsen reviewed the Senior Housing concerns from past meetings as it related to the Work
Program for the Year 2002. Commissioner White questioned what sites remained available for study
within the City. Director Nielsen stated a site study map had been prepared in the recent past, with the
most available sites being developed for other purposes. He suggested the Commission revisit this Site
Study Map, and consider a model for how a three acre site be developed for this type of housing.
Commissioner Gagne requested additional clarification and direction from Council regarding this study of
Senior Housing issues. Chair Bailey agreed, noting it would be unlikely for someone to find the density
allowed on a three-acre site to be lucrative and appropriate for housing of this sort.
.
4.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
August 20, 2002
Page 5 of 5
5.
DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Because of the Labor Day holiday, the meeting dates for September were adjusted. The regular meeting
will be on September 17th and the study session on September 24th.
6. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
Commissioner Gagne reported on the August 12,2002, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the
minutes of that meeting).
Liaison to LCEC
There was nothing new to report.
SLUC
There was nothing to report on at this time.
Other
There were no additional reports for the evening.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2002,
at 9:05 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHORE WOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon (arrived at 7:27 P.M.), Gagne, Packard,
Pisula, White, and Woodruff; Council Liaison Garfunkel, and Planning Director
Nielsen
Absent:
Engineer Brown
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 20, 2002
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, approving the August 20, 2002, Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-PRELIMINARY PLAT
Applicant: Mike Seifert
Location: 23665, 23775, and 23785 Yellowstone Trail
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing. He also stated matters recommended for approval to Council this evening would
appear on the September 23,2002, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant had assembled three parcels of land located at 23665,
23675, and 23685 Yellowstone Trail. He proposed combining the parcels and platting them into
14 single-family residential lots. The property currently contained 12 acres, with approximately
2.5 acres of wetland known as Lake Linden. The property was zoned Single-Family Residential,
with three homes currently existing on the three parcels. The easterly two homes and their
associated accessory buildings would be removed, and the developer intended to keep the
westernmost house and its detached garage as his residence.
Land use and zoning surrounding the site included additional Single-Family Residential homes
to the north and east of the site. Shorewood Village Shopping Center, zoned General
Commercial was to the south, and both Single-Family Residential, and Multiple-Family
Residential were to the west.
Director Nielsen went on to explain the land was characterized as rugged terrain, undulating
from a high point in the southeast comer of the site to Lake Linden in the northwest comer.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 17,2002
Page 2 of 8
.
Drainage patterns also followed this course, with some drainage being detained in low
depressions. The site was substantially wooded with a mix of hardwoods, spruce, and cedar.
All proposed lots were over the minimum lot area for the zoning district. Proposed lots 5,8, and
9 were double the minimum requirement. A cul-de-sac shown on the preliminary plat as
Minnetonka Court, since named Lake Linden Court, served all lots.
.
With regard to issues and analysis of the case, Director Nielsen stated the zoning for the project
allowed for single-family homes on 20,000 square foot lots. The proposed lots would meet or
exceed the minimum requirements for area width and depth, and the use an proposed lot size
were within the land use designation recommended for the area in the Comprehensive Plan. The
wetland had been set aside as an outlot to be deeded to the City, pursuant to wetland regulations.
All buffers related to wetlands could easily be accommodated as part of the plan. The final plat
should include a drawing showing where wetland buffer monuments would be placed.
Regarding subdivision requirements, the proposed street met the minimum right-of-way width
and cul-de-sac diameter required by the zoning code. The length of street was also adequate, and
the developer had shown the width of the paved surface of the street as 30 feet, and the cul-de-
sac diameter was greater than was required. Director Nielsen stated consideration should be
given to reducing the width of the street to 24 feet, the diameter of the cul-de-sac right-of-way to
100 feet, and the diameter of the paved surface to the specifications of the City Engineer. Sight
lines for the new proposed street were considered adequate, but also subject to the City
Engineer's recommendation.
.
Regarding grading, drainage and utilities, Engineer Brown had prepared a report for the
Commission for this case. The development of the property would involve cutting into the site
near Yellow stone Trail and filling one of the existing low areas to create the road. A stormwater
detention pond would be excavated on the west side of the new street, between Lots 11 and 12.
Engineer Brown had several recommendations for the site. First, with regard to right-of-way,
easements, and roadways, he noted the maximum street grade needed to be revised from the
shown 8% grade to the required 6% grade, and vertical sight distance requirements for most
recent MSA standards should be met in design. As part of the final plat process, the applicant's
engineer shall provide the City with horizontal and vertical sight distance calculations for the
proposed entrance on to Yellowstone Trail, as the existing vegetation along the right-of-way
caused concern for vehicles exiting the subdivision. Traffic was expected to increase slightly on
Yellowstone Trail as a result of this project; however, the existing roadway system was capable
of handling the additional demand. With regard to grading and drainage, Engineer Brown noted
the applicant's engineer needed to provide hydraulic calculations demonstrating there was
adequate storage to handle two back-to-back 100-year storm events. The applicant's engineer
also needed to provide hydraulic calculations for the overall site and ponds, including the NURP
pond provided in the side yards of Lots 11 and 12. He also recommended additional catch basins
installed on Minnetonka Court prior to the entrance onto Yellowstone Trail to avoid additional
water entering onto Yellowstone Trail. While this effort would require additional grading and
tree impact to the site along the roadway, this requirement was critical from a traffic safety
perspective. Engineer Brown went to explain in his report that there was an existing depression
with significant tributary area centered on the common lot boundary of Lots 4 and 5. It was
recommended that the applicant's engineer provide a design for an emergency overflow for this
area, similar to the proposed NURP pond, to insure the integrity of the homes from flooding.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 17, 2002
Page 3 of 8
Sanitary sewer was available to the site by an existing main located on Yellowstone Drive, and
while, municipal water service was available 1500 feet away, it appeared the site would be
served by existing wells. Staff was recommending approval, subject to the referenced
conditions. Prior to the release of the final plat for the project, the developer was required to pay
$1200 per lot, with credit being allowed for the lot with the remaining house on it. Also, prior to
the release of the final plat, the developer would be required to pay $1500 per lot in park
dedication fees in lieu of the land. Credit was again allowed for the lot with the remaining house
on it. Director Nielsen also reminded the Commission the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
would also be required to approve the grading, drainage, and erosion control plans for the site as
well.
With regard to tree preservation and reforestation, Director Nielsen recommended a more
accurate depiction of the trees being removed as well as a preservation and reforestation plan be
prepared and submitted by a registered landscape architect as part of the final plat. Also, he
recommended the final plat show larger pad sites, and include pads for Lots 2 and 13. Of final
note, Director Nielsen stated the developer had indicated he might wish to keep Lots 7 and 8 in
additional to his home on Lot 9, with the three lots being kept as one lot. Should this occur, the
development agreement for the project should include a provision stating the resubdivision
would be done through the formal platting process, using the preliminary plat as resubdivision
sketch or "ghost plat." Regardless of when Lot 9 would be separated from the other two lots, a
driveway easement must be created for the portion of the Lot 9 driveway that extended onto Lot
8.
Mike Seifert, applicant, introduced James Parker, of Advance Surveying and Engineering Co., to
the Commission. Mr. Seifert questioned whether the dedication of the wetland and Lake Linden
would be preserved as it was today. Chair Bailey responded affirmatively, noting that was
standard practice.
Chair Bailey opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M.
James Robin, 5935 Glencoe Road, stated he was generally in support of the project, as he owned
property at the corner of Yellowstone Trail and Glencoe Road and had developed that property
in the past. He expressed concern for how the development would affect the community as a
whole. He was concerned with additional traffic on Yellowstone Trail with no pedestrian
walkways in that area; maintenance and ownership of Lake Linden once it was deeded to the
City; and the altered streetscape along Yellowstone Trail from a rural to more developed street
scene.
Commissioner Borkon arrived at 7:27 P.M.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:28 P.M.
Chair Bailey suggested Mr. Robin meet with neighbors in the area regarding a pedestrian trail
along Yellowstone Trail and then follow the City's trail planning process. However, Chair
Bailey also noted the residents in that area seemed divided in the past as to whether a trail was
preferred.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 17, 2002
Page 4 of 8
.
Mr. Parker stated the applicant had no objection to reducing the pavement and cul-de-sac widths
to required levels.
With regard to Commissioner Gagne's question, Mr. Parker explained that even in this wet year
water rarely would stand in the depression between Lots 11 and 12. Mr. Parker went on to
explain this depression was nine feet deep and soil borings indicated gravel underneath the
bottom, thus, the area may be acting as an infiltration basin all on its own. He did not anticipate
any standing water in that area.
Commissioner Pisula questioned whether there were benefits to moving the entrance to the
development to avoid the large tree to be removed. Director Nielsen stated there were minimal
benefits to doing so. Mr. Parker stated the tree would block sight lines for motorists as it stood
out in the boulevard area.
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Preliminary Plat, subject to
Staff recommendations, and with final plat review by the Commission, for Mike Seifert,
23665,23775, and 23785 Yellowstone Trail. Motion passed 7/0.
2. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Scott Richards
Location: 5380 Howard's Point Road
. Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:53 P.M.
Director Nielsen reviewed the criteria for granting variances. He then went on to explain the
applicant owned the property at 5380 Howard's Point Road. Mr. Richards proposed to tear
down the existing home on the property and build a new home on the portion of the lot to the
east of Howard's Point Road. Mr. Richards was requesting an 18-foot variance for the side yard
abutting Edgewood Road. Director Nielsen also explained the property was zoned Single Family
ResidentiallShoreland and contained approximately 1.8 acres, the rear third of which was
occupied by designated wetland. The property was cut in two by Howard's Point Road, with the
existing house and deck located on the westerly portion of the lot, very near the shoreline of
Lake Minnetonka. A detacher garage was located on the east side of the lot, abutting the right-
of-way. The new house would be 50 feet from the right-of-way from Howard's Point Road. A
proposed setback from Edgewood Road was 47 feet, measured from the paved surface of the
roadway, as there was discrepancy as to whether Edgewood Road had any right-of-way.
.
In analysis, Director Nielsen explained this proposal was quite interesting, as the irregular shape
of the lot and road dividing the parcel in two would satisfy the criteria for granting variance of
physical uniqueness. The required setbacks imposed by the zoning district would render the
property nearly unbuildable. Further, Director Nielsen stated the project would eliminate
numerous nonconformities with current site, as the existing house and deck would be replaced
with a small gazebo and deck that fit within the buildable area of the westerly portion of the lot.
The detached garage and existing driveway would be replaced with an attached garage and a
driveway on the Edgewood Road side of the property. He also noted the applicant had not fully
decided on specific building plans for the site. As a result, Director Nielsen suggested any
variance granted stipulate the home that would be built would be no larger than the footprint set
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 17,2002
Page 5 of 8
forth in submitted plans by the developer. Also, Director Nielsen stated the requested "No
Parking" signs by the applicant seemed reasonable, as they would impact only the applicant,
would preserve the view of the lake, and increase safety near the intersection of Howard's Point
Road and Edgewood Road. Should the future owner wish to live in the existing house while the
new home was being built, Director Nielsen recommended this be allowed for a period of time
up to six months. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the new house, the property owner
must submit a bid for the demolition of the house and garage and for the restoration of the lot.
From this bid, the City should require a letter of credit for one and one-half times the amount of
the bid to guarantee the house and garage would be removed within the six-month period.
Director Nielsen also noted additional benefits for granting this variance would include
hardcover would most likely be decreased as a result of the proposal, the City would gain greater
compliance with the site than was currently being exhibited, and the neighbors would have a
greater view of the lake.
Director Nielsen also stated a letter had been received from the neighbor to the north across
Edgewood Road, noting a concern for additional drainage in that area from the proposed
construction. The City Engineer had recommended the applicant grant an easement along the
northerly edge of the property allowing the City to install a pipe to help to alleviate drainage in
the area.
Director Nielsen recommended approval of the variance.
. Scott Richards, owner and applicant, thanked the Commission for its patience in dealing with
this property, and offered to answer any questions the Commission may have had of him.
.
Hearing no one present wishing to speak on this matter, Chair Bailey opened and closed the
Public Testimony portion ofthe Public Hearing at 8:06 P.M.
Commissioner Woodruff stated she agreed this plan would help to bring the site into compliance,
but questioned whether some of the decking could be removed on the proposed house plans to
minimize the extent of the variance being requested. Commissioner White agreed.
Chair Bailey questioned the hardship in this case. Director Nielsen explained the site was
extremely nonconforming with a very unique physical setting. He cited additional precedents set
in a similar situation near Christmas Lake. He stated there was much to be gained for City
residents in this case, and much of the dimensions requested in the proposal were based on Staff
direction.
Commissioner Borkon stated she also agreed with Commissioners Woodruff and White, noting
she was in favor granting the variance as she liked the idea of people being able to use their
property to its potential, and this case seemed to do that.
Commissioner Pisula stated he agreed with Commissioner Borkon, White, and Woodruff
regarding decreasing the decking to provide a minimum variance. He stated he was not in favor
of recommending only the buildable lot area, but wanted to give further guidance to the future of
this project. He stated he would vote against this request, as 47' was not the minimum requested
variance possible.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 17,2002
Page 6 of8
.
Chair Bailey stated the burden of proof was on the applicant to show the minimum variance
necessary for the project. The lot, as proposed, did have buildable area, and a house could be
built in that area.
Mr. Richards stated several people had approached him regarding a dormer addition onto the
current home; however, he was trying to make the site more marketable for someone. He stated
he was making this request to make it more attractive to a potential buyer as proximity to the
lake was being removed.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Setback Variance, subject
to Staff recommendations, with the inclusion of an easement along the northerly portion of
the lot on Edgewood Road for installation of a drainage pipe, for Scott Richards, 5380
Howard's Point Road. Motion failed 3/4, with Bailey, Pisula, Woodruff, and White
dissenting.
Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 8:42 P.M., and reconvened the meeting at 8:47 P.M.
3. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE FOR SIGN
Applicant: Mike Condon, rep. Minnewashta Elementary School
Location: 26350 Smith town Road
. Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:55P.M.
Director Nielsen reported that Mike Condon, Director of Grounds and Operations for the
Minnetonka School District, is requesting a setback variance for a sign in front of the
Minnewashsta Elementary School at 26350 Smithtown Road. The District proposes to erect a
seven-foot-tall monument style sign on the berm located between the east and middle access
drives into the school property. Not only does the proposed sign not meet the required five-foot
setback, but the site plan shows the sign in the public right-of-way of Smithtown Road.
Minnewashta Elementary currently has one small freestanding sign near the east entrance drive
and one wall sign on the south side of the building. The proposed sign measures 4' x 5' and will
face Smithtown Road. Approximately the lower two feet of the sign includes a reader board that
allows messages and announcements to be changed.
Director Nielsen noted that there appeared to be adequate room between the right-of-way and the
parking lot to accommodate the sign and the five foot setback. He recommended that the sign be
positioned perpendicular to the road which would allow a two-sided sign to be more visible to
motorists from both directions on Smithtown Road. The sign can be increased in height to eight
feet to make the reader board portion equally as visible.
.
Mr. Condon agreed with Director Nielsen's recommendations and said they will change the sign
plan accordingly.
With no comment from the public, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the
hearing at 9:08 P.M.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 17, 2002
Page 7 of8
Commissioner Pisula inquired if the existing sign near the driveway will be removed. Director
Nielsen said it will either be removed or relocated to the westerly portion of the property.
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Denial of a Setback Variance for the
Proposed Sign.
Since a variance would not be necessary by implementing the changes, the applicant
withdrew the application. Woodruff withdrew her motion, Packard agreed.
4. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION
Applicant:
Location:
Marvin and Hazel Boote
24340 Yellowstone Trail
In November of 2000 Marvin Boote requested approval of a simple subdivision to divide his
property at 24340 Yellowstone Trail into two lots. Before the Planning Commission at which
the request was to be heard, Mr. Boote withdrew the application. He has now submitted a new
application that has addressed the issues raised in the staff report dated 17 November 2000.
Mr. Carl Zinn appeared on behalf of Mr. Boote. Mr. Zinn stated that the owner would prefer to
provide a letter of credit as security to assure that the barn will be removed within six months of
the .Council's approval.
Borkon moved, Woodruff seconded, Recommending Approval of the Simple Subdivision,
subject to Staff recommendations, including the Applicant's provision of a Letter of Credit
as security for removal of the barn within six months of the City Council's approval.
Motion passed 7/0.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The next meeting, on September 24th will be preceded by an Open House starting at 5:30 P.M.
for neighborhood District Area Plans followed by a study session including discussion on the
Area Plans, Senior Housing, and the County Road 19 Corridor.
7. REPORTS
SLUC
Chair Bailey and Director Nielsen plan to attend the meeting on September 25th.
Other
There were no additional reports for the evening.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 17, 2002
Page 8 of8
8. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, White seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of
September 17, 2002, at 9:25 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24,2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon (arrived at 7:08 P.M.), Gagne, Packard, Pisula,
White, and Woodruff; Council Liaison Garfunkel, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
Chair Bailey commented the Open House held from 5:30 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. this evening at City Hall in
Council Chambers to review Planning District Area Plans seemed to gamer support from the six residents
that attended the event. He noted the rest of this evening's meeting would take place in Study Session
format.
STUDY SESSION
1. DISCUSS AREA PLANS
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Discussing the Complete Set of Area Plans at the October 1,
2002, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion passed 6/0.
2. DISCUSS SENIOR HOUSING
After brief discussion by the Commission, it was determined Commissioner Packard, as October Planning
Commission Liaison, should hold a dialogue with Council regarding recommendations on density
requirements for the City.
3. DISCUSS COUNTY ROAD 19 CORRIDOR
Director Nielsen explained the County Road 19 project had been delayed due to a dispute over
land/structure values for the Tonka Bay Liquor Store. The project was being slated for the Spring 2003
construction season.
He went on to explain George Watson, of Brauer and Associates, continued to work on the streetscape
plans for the project, largely in effort to coordinate the streetscape aesthetically with the Public Safety
Facility slated for groundbreaking this fall. Director Nielsen then shared various options for the building
material of the retaining walls along the County Road 19 corridor. Consensus of the Commission
indicated a preference for the wall material to include the New England Drystack design. Director
Nielsen went on to discuss the use of entry monuments at entrance points to the City as well as a potential
firefighter's memorial near the intersection of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road as a vertical element
to the streetscape.
Director Nielsen stated the next step in the planning process for the project would be to address concept
plans in text form and compare the planned design to the elements of the Comprehensive Plan. He
anticipated making a recommendation to Council about the County Road 19 Corridor Study by year-end.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 24, 2002
Page 2 of2
4.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated a final plat review of Oakview Estates and consideration of final draft text for the
Planning District Area Plans were slated for the October I, 2002, Planning Commission Agenda.
Commissioner White questioned whether the concepts involved in commercial redevelopment could be
examined as part of the 2003 Planning Commission Work Program. Director Nielsen stated this issue
would be placed on the Work Program.
6. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
Commissioner Borkon reported on matters considered and actions taken at the September 23, 2002,
Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Liaison to LCEC
The next Land Conservation and Environment Committee meeting was scheduled for October 3, 2002.
There had not been a meeting of the LCEC since the most recent Planning Commission meeting.
SLUC
A Conservative's View of Smart Growth was the topic being presented at the Sensible Land Use
Coalition Meeting on September 25, 2002. Director Nielsen, Chair Bailey, and Commissioner Pisula
were expected to attend.
Other
No additional business was presented for discussion this evening.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of September 24,
2002, at 8:24 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
~~(;V\ tD _ q/z-cf( PI ~V\ _. , CGYV1~ _ M~r MlV\tUJC~
f\.:, pu 1tN ~ ~ vu*I VV\ - (vtOvvJLS O. ",-1'11 fj "
SIGN-IN SHEET cJ tfvV
OPEN HOUSE
SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE
NUMBER
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff;
Council Liaison Garfunkel, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 17, 2002
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Approving the September 17, 2002, as amended, on Page 2,
Paragraph 4, Sentence 7, change "llO-year storm events," to "100-year storm events," and on Page
4, Item 2, Paragraph 2, Sentence 3, change "anew" to "a new", and change "ht lot" to "the lot", and
in Sentence 8 of the same paragraph, change "feet form" to "feet from," and on Page 6, Item 2
Motion, change the "Motion failed %", to "Motion failed 3/4." Motion passed 7/0.
STUDY SESSION
1. OAKVIEW ESTATES - TREE PRESERV ATION/REFORESTATION PLAN
Director Nielsen explained he had recently received the tree preservation and reforestation plan for
Oakview Estates. Upon closer inspection, he noticed it still was lacking a number of requested elements
of design. He suggested the plan be rejected, and an adequate tree preservation and reforestation plan
submitted by the October 15,2002, Planning Commission Meeting for review.
Woodruff moved, White seconded, Rejecting the Tree Preservation and Reforestation Plan for
Oakview Estates. Motion passed 7/0.
2. SENIOR HOUSING REGULATIONS
Director Nielsen explained recommendations made previously regarding ordinance requirements for
density in Senior Housing sites remained valid. He stated the recommendation of 8 units per acre in the
RI-C zoning district were excessive for actual construction limits of preferred "cottage style" housing.
Based on previous construction experience throughout the City, he thought reducing that recommendation
to 6 units per acre made the ordinance more accurate for building limits.
Commissioner Woodruff stated she was in favor of making the ordinance fit the real experience of
construction. Commissioner Gagne commented he liked the idea of smaller clusters of housing per unit;
however, he knew it became cost prohibitive in construction.
Director Nielsen also noted in a study of potential Senior Housing sites within the City, three sites had
been recommended. All three of these sites had been utilized since the time of that study. With current
conditions of zoning and land use, he anticipated it would be very difficult to try to speculate which
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 1, 2002
Page 2 of2
. parcels of land could potentially be assembled over time to provide a site large enough to accommodate
senior housing.
There was consensus among the Commission to recommend to Council to reduce the density
requirements to 6 units per acre as per the previous recommendation.
3. REVIEW AREA PLANS
Director Nielsen reviewed the text for the twelve zoning district area plans for the City with the
Commission. Typographical and contextual errors were reviewed for accuracy.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Adopting Zoning District Area Plans for Districts 1-12, as
amended this evening. Motion passed 7/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
.
As there were no applications presented for review by the Commission, the October 15,2002, Planning
Commission Agenda included a discussion of variances in Study Session format.
6.
REPORTS
Liaison to Council
There had not been a meeting of the City Council since the most recent Planning Commission meeting;
thus, there was nothing new to report.
Liaison to LCEC
There had not been a meeting of the Land Conservation and Environment Committee since the most
recent Planning Commission meeting, thus, there was nothing new to report.
SLUC
Director Nielsen, Chair Bailey, and Commissioner Pisula reported on the September 25, 2002 Sensible
Land Use Coalition Meeting on a Conservative's View on Smart Growth.
Other
No other items were reported this evening.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Packard moved, Borkon seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:10 P.M.
. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 15 OCTOBER 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff;
Council Liaison Garfunkel, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. September 24, 2002
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, Approving the September 24, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 7/0.
. October 1, 2002
Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, Approving the October 1, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 7/0.
STUDY SESSION
1. OAKVIEW ESTATES - TREE PRESERV ATION/REFORESTATION PLAN
Director Nielsen explained no further information had been received regarding the required tree
preservation/reforestation plan, thus, no further action was required this evening.
2. DISCUSS V ARlANCES
Director Nielsen reviewed related background information and overview of variance actions taken in the
past. He went on to explain variances were judicial actions by criteria and defined as being unique. He
also noted variance actions were the most challenging action the Planning Commission was required to
decide. He stated discussions about variances should become a part of the Study Sessions in the future,
and this evening's discussion would provide an initial discussion of the issue. Chair Bailey presented a
historical compilation of variance actions taken in the past three years.
The Commission discussed various elements and commonalities found in recommendations regarding
variances. The Commission determined individuals' guiding principles allowed people to approach
issues consistently, and the uniqueness of the variance situations were more important than finding
commonalities between elements of granting variances. Director Nielsen complimented the Commission
on its work with variances in the past and as part ofthis discussion this evening.
Director Nielsen noted the Commission had indicated consensus for consideration being given to rearyard
setback and like structure amendments to the City zoning ordinances.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
October 15,2002
Page 2 of2
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Commissioner Woodruff expressed concern for the recent letter distributed by BFI, Inc., noting the refuse
collection date had been changed in contradiction to the City ordinance regulating refuse collection occur
on the same day as recycling within the City. Director Nielsen stated this matter would be examined by
Staff to see if remedy could be found.
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated the November 6, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting would take place in the
Conference Room at City Hall at 7:00 P.M. and would be conducted as a Study Session with a discussion
on Senior Housing issues being slated for the Agenda that evening.
5. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
Commissioner Packard and Council Liaison Garfunkel reported on matters considered and actions taken
at the October 14,2002, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Liaison to LCEC
There had not been a meeting of the Land Conservation and Environment Committee, thus, there was
nothing to report.
SLUC
Director Nielsen stated the next meeting of the Sensible Land Use Coalition would take place on
November 6, 2002, and would include a discussion on What Will the Region Look Like in 2030? All
Commissioners were invited to attend.
Other
No other business was presented for discussion this evening.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of October 15,
2002, at 9:03 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon (arrived at 7:23 P.M.), Gagne, Packard, Pisula,
White, and Woodruff; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Council Liaison Garfunkel
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· October 15, 2002
Gagne moved, White seconded, Approving the October 15, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
STUDY SESSION
In review of the remaining Agenda items, Director Nielsen stated Item 2 needed to be removed from the
Agenda until more information could be made available.
1. OAKVIEW ESTATES - TREE PRESERV ATION/REFORESTATION PLAN
Director Nielsen stated the Tree Preservation and Reforestation Plan for Oakview Estates had arrived for
review by the Commission. He stated trees had been preserved to the extent possible, and the plan was
realistic in expectation for those trees to be preserved. He further explained the landscaping had been
corrected, and there were no evergreens placed near the entrance as part of the proposed plan. He also
explained, in response to Commissioner White's question, the trees along the eastern side of the property
had been revised, as there was no room to plant the originally proposed trees without encroaching on the
neighbor's property.
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Approving the Tree Preservation and Reforestation Plan for
Oakview Estates. Motion passed 6/0.
2. COUNTY ROAD 19 CORRIDOR STUDY
This item was removed from the Agenda for this evening.
3. mSTORIC PRESERVATION
Director Nielsen stated the discussion this evening would be the beginning of a series of discussions on
this topic that was inspired by the need for designation of historic properties within the City. Residents
often thought homes in the area were of historic value, and expected this value to impact the restoration
and building/planning process. As historic preservation had not yet been defined, working with the issue
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 6, 2002
Page 2 of3
. posed problems for the Commission when trying to objectively work within the building/planning
process. He noted the City of Excelsior had a historic preservation district with guidelines and standards
of evaluation assigned to it. While he was not suggesting the creation of an entire district, he did suggest
the Commission:
1. Research and define criteria of what types of structures would be considered historic
2. Conduct an initial inventory of known historic sites within the City as well as known Native
American burial mounds.
3. Construct an Age of Structures Map for the City, including buildings older than fifty years, and
older than 100 years.
Director Nielsen stated these steps would not limit change for residents wishing to upgrade property, but
would simply register the existence of historic value. He also explained tax advantages were available to
propertyowners under certain conditions as part of historically valued sites.
Chair Bailey also suggested the addition of the following items for the study of historic preservation
Issues:
4. Identify possible incentives and restrictions on development of a property having historic
preservation value.
5. Develop ordinance language to provide conclusive findings of the study and provide direction for
future actions.
.
In response to Commissioner Borkon's question, Director Nielsen explained, even with a small number of
historic preservation sites, certification could be granted in some instances thereby allowing cities and
residents to utilize grant money designated for historic preservation purposes.
Commissioner Pisula requested discussion on how the architecturally distinctive home designs could be
included in this topic for study in the future.
The Commission agreed to read presented background materials from Director Nielsen on this topic, and
to begin to identify any historic properties in the City for the next Study Session Meeting of the
Commission.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Commissioner Packard thanked Chair Bailey, on behalf of the entire Commission, for his effort,
knowledge, and dedication to providing excellent newsletter summaries of the Planning Commission
activities each month.
Commissioner Gagne requested an update on a property being reviewed by the Minnehaha Creek
. Watershed District (MCWD) for construction. Director Nielsen provided a status report for the
Commission, noting communication efforts had been improved between the MCWD and the City as a
result of this case.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
.
Director Nielsen explained there were two Public Hearings, one for a Planned Unit Development and the
other for a Conditional Use Permit, as well as review of a revised Site Plan, were slated for the November
19,2002, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 6, 2002
Page 3 of3
6.
REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Gagne reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 28,2002, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
· Liaison to LCEC
Commissioner Woodruff explained there had not been a meeting of the Land Conservation and
Environment Committee since the last Planning Commission.
· SLUC
Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen, and Commissioner Woodruff provided reports to the Commission on the
Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUe) Meeting held today on the "Blueprint for the Year 2030." Director
Nielsen noted the topic for the December 6, 2002, SLUC Meeting would be "Trends in Buildings and
Land Use." All Commissioners were invited to attend.
· Other
Chair Bailey distributed a revised history of variance requests, and encouraged Commissioners to begin
considering items to be placed on the 2003 Work Program. The Commission agreed the Planning
Commission Meeting held on December 6, 2002, would be the only meeting held by the Commission that
month.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 6,
2002, at 8:15 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff; Council
Liaison Garfunkel, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Borkon
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· November 6, 2002
Packard moved, Gagne seconded, Approving the November 6, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
1.
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - IDGH POINTE P.U.D. - CONCEPT AND
DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS
Applicant: Lecy Construction
Location: 23520 and 23570 Highway 7
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 P.M. He reviewed the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing, noting matters recommended for approval this evening would be placed on the November 25,
2002, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration.
Director Nielsen stated Lecy Construction, Inc., owned two parcels of land located at 23520 and 23570
State Highway 7. Lecy proposed subdividing the property, initially into three lots and four outlots, with
the possibility one of the outlots could be resubdivided in the future. Subject property was zoned Single-
Family Residential, containing approximately 7.2 acres, of which 1.27 acres was designated as wetland.
Surrounding land use and zoning contains mostly Single and Two-Family Residential homes to the north,
east, and south of the property. Shorewood Village Shopping Center and Single Family homes bordered
the westerly portion of the property.
Director Nielsen noted the topography of the site included a high hill in the southwestern comer of the
site, dropping into a wetland basin. The property was fairly wooded, especially along the southern edge
of the wetland. Open areas where two previous homesteads existed were located on the southerly third of
the site. Due to certain challenges presented by terrain and access, the developer proposed to develop the
property by means of Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). The first three lots would be accessed by a
private cul-de-sac, extending northward from an existing service road to Highway 7. The private road
would be platted as Outlot A and owned and maintained by a homeowner's association (H.O.A.). Outlot
B was to be set aside as conservation open space to be owned and maintained by the HOA. The
developer would grant a conservation easement over Outlot B to the City. Outlot C was a designated
wetland area that would be deeded to the City, pursuant to current wetland regulations. Outlot D would
possibly be redivided in the future into as many as three lots.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 19,2002
Page 2 of7
.
Director Nielsen stated a revised replatted plan had been submitted just prior to this meeting, noting
Outlot D was being platted as a lot off Charleston Circle with an outlot behind it. He stated this outlot
had the potential to be "landlocked", however, this issue would be handled through developer's
agreement and final plan stage of the project. Director Nielsen went on to state there were a number of
issues that remained in consideration of these plans. Zoning and subdivision requirements were
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and all lots complied with area, width, and setback requirements
of the zoning district. Access to Highway 7 was the most significant issues associated with this request.
While MnDot would prefer a long cul-de-sac street extending southward from Charleston Circle, the
developer had attempted to minimize the number of lots in order to minimize the number of trips onto
Highway 7. Access would be gained through the construction of a private road intersecting into Our
Saviors Lutheran Church and would exist in the public right-of-way. Also, the plat reflected a settlement
of a boundary line dispute between the developer and the property owner to the east. The City had been
advised that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MNPCA) had record of a heating oil tank on the
easterly side of the two previous homes on the site. MNPCA closed the file in 1996, reserving further
investigation if the spill site was disturbed or if further contamination was found during the development
of the site. Tree removal had been minimized, and a reforestation plan had not yet been submitted. The
project was subject to park dedication fees and local sanitary sewer charges. Director Nielsen also
explained Engineer Brown was present this evening to review the grading, drainage, and utility concerns
associated with the project.
.
Engineer Brown stated he recommended the applicant provide the City with an easement agreement
between the title owner of the property and Our Saviors Lutheran Church for access rights to the private
driveway of Our Saviors Lutheran Church as part of the final plat review. Similarly, since the plat
accessed the State right-of-way, a permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
would also be required. Staff was also recommending the approach to the private roadway maintain a 2.0
percent vertical approach grade for a distance of 50 feet as a minimum. The proposed roadway was 20
feet in width, and met the fire code requirements. The applicant's engineer would be required to submit
soil borings and pavement design to insure adequate stability for fire response vehicles. Final plans,
specifications, and estimates for utility and roadway construction would be reviewed by the City Engineer
as part of the final plat approval.
Individual well service was being proposed and sanitary sewer extension had been planned from the
existing utility at State Highway 7 to the interior of the cul-de-sac. Engineer Brown also explained the
grading, drainage, and erosion control for the site would prove more challenging. The proposed plan
drained to the wetland located on the property. This wetland was without outlet, and water levels were
maintained by percolation and evapotranspiration. Since the site was under the jurisdiction of the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), a Functions and Values Assessment was being prepared
for the wetland on site. Additionally, the MCWD had adopted rules to regulate the addition of storm
water runoff to existing wetlands, with analysis to be conducted regarding the impacts to the receiving
waters. The applicant needed to provide runoff calculations demonstrating maintenance of the pre-
developed runoff rate, and that the wetland basin had adequate capacity to handle additional volume.
Similarly, pre and post development hydraulic calculations would need to be reviewed by the hydraulics
unit ofMNDOT. Since the issues of concern were not affecting arrangement of the lots, Engineer Brown
recommended approval of the concept stage plans presented this evening. Director Nielsen concurred as
a development agreement and protective covenants would address the PUD in the final stage plan review.
.
Peter Knaeble, project engineer with Terra Engineering, and representing the applicant, Roy Lecy, stated
he had received and reviewed Staff reports presented this evening. He concurred with the regulations,
stating he was asking for concept stage development plans this evening. He did not anticipate having
difficulties meeting the engineering and technical requirements for the project. He noted the applicant
had started this process several times over the years and had reduced the original project size down to the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 19, 2002
Page 3 of 7
. proposed plan. He also stated a preliminary application for access permit from MNDOT was currently
under review.
Chair Bailey entered a letter from Dan and Linda Esenther, 5960 Glencoe Road, into the record,
indicating objection to the proposed design of the development as the proposed plans indicated use of
their property for road access.
Chair Bailey then closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:33 P.M.
Various points were clarified as part of the Commission's discussion on the proposed development, with
specific responsibility being given to the applicant to clarify ownership of the driveway access to
Highway 7.
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of the Concept Stage Plans for High
Pointe Planned Unit Development, for Lecy Construction at 23520 and 23570 Highway 7. Motion
passed 6/0.
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, Continuing the Public Hearing on the Development Stage Plans for
High Planned Unit Development, for Lecy Construction at 23520 and 23570 Highway 7, to January
7,2003. Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 7:45 P.M., due to technical computer error, and reconvened the
meeting at 7:52 P.M.
.
2.
7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SOUTH LAKE MTKA. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY -
C.U.P. AMENDMENT
Applicant: Shorewood Economic Development Authority
Location: 24140 Smithtown Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:52 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the City had approved a Conditional Use Permit (C.u.P.) for the construction
of a new Public Safety Facility located at 24140 Smithtown Road in September of this year. Budget
considerations had necessitated changes in the some of the materials originally approved for the building.
As a result, the Commission was being asked to consider an amendment to the CUP, and proposed
changes were significant enough to warrant a Public Hearing on the matter.
Director Nielsen stated the most significant change being requested was the roofing materials.
"Architectural grade" asphalt shingles were being proposed, instead of the original light, gray, standing
seam metal panel roof. Also, the approved plans included stamped and stained concrete to resemble
stonework at the base of the building. It was hoped the retaining walls would have a similar appearance
to compliment the retaining walls proposed for the County Road 19 project. The architects now proposed
using a rock-faced concrete block for the base of the building and concrete with "rustification joints" for
the retaining walls.
.
While these changes could be considered disappointing from an aesthetic perspective, they were
considered necessary over plan changes that would compromise the functionality of the facility and
services provided by its use. Director Nielsen asked the Commission to consider recommending the rock-
faced block be brought as low as possible on the east elevation facing the Shorewood Lane homes. Also,
the asphalt shingles should be somewhat darker than the metal roof to avoid the dark staining appearance
of lighter-colored shingles. The architects for the Public Safety facility had been asked to work with the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 19, 2002
Page 4 of 7
.
landscape architect for the County Road 19 project to create a complimentary transition from the roadway
retaining walls and the retaining walls for the Public Safety facility.
Tom Schuelke, from TSP, One, Inc., and representing the Shorewood EDA, presented information on the
roofing and concrete materials proposed for use in the construction of the Public Safety Facility. He
noted the project had gone through a value engineering process, and had tried to be sensitive to original
intent of the materials to provide a "civic" theme building with a residential context to it. He then shared
specific examples of the proposed materials for the building and also explained additional landscaping
was being proposed along the easterly side of the building. Residents in the homes along Shorewood
Lane were encouraged to help direct placement of the coniferous trees and additional landscaping in the
spring when trees were fully leaved in effort to provide adequate buffer for the area.
Eric Rousar, 5575 Shorewood Lane, stated he appreciated Staff's recommendation to include
neighborhood input for changes to the building and landscaping. He stated he was a bit concerned with
the early morning start time for the workers on the project. Also, he noted there were work trucks and
dumpsters associated with the project that continued to provide congestion on Shorewood Lane.
.
Cindy Koman, 115 Brentwood, questioned whether trees would be placed along the northerly side of the
building. Mr. Schuelke stated additional trees could be placed on that side to cover the gap toward the
back of the property. Ms. Koman also questioned the economics of placing shingles on a building that
was to last fifty years, when it seemed as though the metal roof would provide better economy over the
years. Council Liaison Garfunkel explained it was important to stick to the proposed budget for the
project, and while a certain maintenance cost would be involved for the shingles, it was important to
consider appropriate cost saving measures. Chief Litsey stated all parties preferred the original design,
however, examining the aesthetics of the building seemed to be more prudent than compromising
functionality in providing service to the residents.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:21 P.M.
Commissioner Pisula stated he recognized this building was being funded by taxpayers and was a
delicately crafted enterprise, however, he shared Ms. Koman's sentiments about being "penny wise and
pound foolish" in this case. He stated he believed part of his role in this matter was to make the
community proud of the building being constructed in this residential area. All Commissioners agreed.
Commissioner Woodruff stated it would have been helpful to be able to see a computer rendering of what
was being proposed in this case.
Chair Bailey then reviewed the criteria for changing an amendment as was requested. He also stated he
appreciated the architects working with the neighbors to minimize the impact of the project.
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Recommending Approval of Amending the Conditional Use Permit,
per Staff recommendations, for the Shorewood Economic Development Authority-Public Safety
Facility, 24140 Smithtown Road. Motion passed 6/0.
Council Liaison Garfunkel left Council Chambers for the duration of the discussion on the next item to
avoid any potential conflict of interest in the matter.
3.
CUB FOOD STORE - REVISED SITE PLAN
Applicant: Shorewood Village Shopping Center
Location: 23800 Highway 7
.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 19,2002
Page 5 of7
Director Nielsen stated there had been a bit of speculation in the community why construction had not yet
taken place on the Shorewood Village Shopping Center expansion. He explained the developer had been
awaiting permits from other affected agencies, such as MPCA, DNR, MCWD, and possibly the
Minnesota Health Department. One necessary approval for the project was from the Fire Marshal. While
a water storage tank holding 120,000 gallons was approved as part of the original site plan, the Fire
Marshal indicated a tank was needed in excess of 300,000 gallons to maintain adequate fire flow to the
site. As a result, the developer's engineers proposed either a taller tank or a larger diameter tank with
same height as what was originally proposed. Director Nielsen also noted the developer continued to
explore options for bringing municipal water to the site, either from the City of Chanhassan or City of
Shorewood. Should these efforts fail, a larger water storage tank would be needed thus, the reason for
this request.
Staff had recommended the larger diameter tank would be less obtrusive to the residential neighborhood
to the north. This tank would continue to be located in the northeast corner of the buildable area of the
property. Parking had been rearranged to accommodate the proposed larger tank, and had gained an extra
parking space as result. The location of the tank would be screened by the landscaping already approved
for the northeast corner of the site. It was also recommended that three of the proposed Austrian Pine be
increased in size to 10-12 feet in height. The developer's architect proposed painting the tank an olive or
sage green color to further diminish it from view.
Failing the public water alternatives, approval was recommended for the revised site plan, subject to the
requirement of the three larger pine trees and the greenish paint on the tank.
John Uban, architect for the project, stated he was available to answer any questions the Commission may
have had of him. He stated options for bringing municipal water to the site continued to be pursued,
however, the project needed approval of the Fire Marshal to move forward. He stated the additional
landscaping and green toned paint would not be a problem for the project.
Chair Bailey stated his concern was for the screening of the tank for the neighborhood to the north.
Director Nielsen stated, with the additional landscaping, the corner was quite well screened in the
summer.
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Approval of the Revised Site Plan, subject to
Staff Recommendations, for Shorewood Village Shopping Center, 23800 Highway 7. Motion passed
6/0.
4. SETBACK VARIANCE REVIEW
Applicant:
Location:
Scott Richards
5480 Howard's Point Road
Council Liaison Garfunkel returned to Council Chambers.
Director Nielsen stated the Council had requested this matter be referred back to the Commission for
further discussion on the matter, specifically related to the minimum variance necessary for the request.
He also explained the City had obtained a roadway easement for this property along Edgewood Road. He
went on to explain the buyer for the property had submitted plans for review showing the house having a
primary view facing Howard's Point Road and Lake Minnetonka. The garage had the option of being
placed within the buildable area of the lot. Director Nielsen also shared a comparison chart
demonstrating how the proposed plans would bring the property into compliance with City regulations.
He stated the primary question before the Commission continued to be whether the applicant could make
reasonable use of the property with the requested housing plan and noted reasonable use was considered a
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 19, 2002
Page 6 of7
subjective issue. The proposed plan met the criteria of a variance, and the applicant was trying to bring
the property into compliance and couldn't with the current structures.
Paul Larsen, representing the applicant, stated he believed this was a unique piece of property and
believed very strongly that a variance was deserved in this case. He stated the garage across the street
was an issue of safety and security for the applicant, and the house was nearing the end of its useful life,
as it was 102 years old. He noted the applicant could not make the current structure conform to Code, as
it was platted prior to the City regulations of the matter. He further stated the applicant had explored
narrowing the design of the proposed house, and found the desired configuration would not work, and the
garage would be more architecturally pleasing to the neighborhood with an "end load" design.
Commissioner White stated she was concerned for the size of the proposed house, as it seemed a large
home was being placed on a small lot. She also noted the garage issue did not constitute a hardship for
the applicant in her opinion.
Commissioner Pisula agreed, stating he was not convinced the minimum setback variance had yet been
obtained. He stated this plan was closer to the requirements, however, he believed less could be
constructed and reasonable use still maintained.
Commissioner Gagne stated he was excited for new construction on the site. He believed this request to
be reasonable as it corrected many of the nonconformities currently existing.
Commissioner Woodruff stated she agreed with both Commissioners Pisula and Gagne in this case. She
stated she was not opposed to the house being built on the property; however, she was concerned with the
variance request. She believed a home could be constructed within the buildable area of the lot.
Commissioner Gagne stated this property was quite unique, and a bungalow style home would be out of
character. He stated a substantial home was needed for a substantial lot.
Commissioner Packard questioned the smallest width for a home where reasonable use could be
maintained and noted she liked the idea of turning the garage to fit within the buildable lot area. Mr.
Larsen stated he believed 29 feet was considered too small for reasonable use.
Chair Bailey stated the ordinance stated a variance request needed to be minimized to the extent possible.
He thought the business located across the street was an irrelevant issue in this case, and the real issue
was being able to utilize the buildable area of the lot. He stated he could not support the proposed plan,
as he was concerned the variance had not been minimized to the extent possible.
Commissioner White stated the applicant needed to be given some direction of what the Commission
believed a reasonable variance would be in order to revise plans and return for another variance request.
Chair Bailey stated he believed a sideyard setback of 40 feet between the roadway easement and a
proposed house would be appropriate as a person could easily fit two rooms with a hall between in the
space remaining on the lot. The Commission agreed.
Pisula moved, Woodruff seconded, Recommending Denial of the Setback Variance, and suggested
the applicant consider a sideyard setback of forty feet from the easement of Edgewood Road, and
the garage be turned to lie within the buildable area of the lot.
With the permission of the seconder, the maker of the motion amended the motion to Recommend
the applicant return with an amended variance request including a sideyard setback of at least
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 19, 2002
Page 7 of7
. forty feet and with the garage being turned to lie within the buildable area of the lot. Motion
passed 6/0.
Director Nielsen stated this matter would be placed on the November 25, 2002, Regular City Council
Agenda for consideration.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated the Agenda for the December 3,2002, Planning Commission Meeting included a
discussion with the Executive Director of the West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust, three
Public Hearings on a Variance to Build on a Substandard Lot, a Conditional Use Permit and Zoning Text
Amendment, and Preliminary and Final Plat review for Boyer Lake Minnewashta, as well as a
presentation by the City's Traffic Consultant regarding Establishing "Opt-out" Transit Services for the
City.
7. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
.
Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the November 12, 2002,
Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
· Liaison to LCEC
Commissioner Woodruff stated a meeting of the Land Conservation and Environment Committee had not
taken place since the most recent Planning Commission Meeting.
· SLUC
Director Nielsen stated there would be a meeting of the Sensible Land Use Coalition on December 4,
2002. The topic for the meeting would be Emerging Trends in Minnesota with Professor John S. Adams,
from the Hubert H. Humprhey Institute of Public Affairs as the speaker. All Commissioners were invited
to attend.
· Other
There were no other reports presented this evening.
8. ADJO~ENT
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 19,
2002, at 10:05 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
.
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3,2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Pisula, White, and Woodruff; Council
Liaison Garfunkel, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Packard
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· November 19, 2002
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Approving the November 19, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as amended, on Page 1, Item 1, Paragraph 2, Sentence 4, change "Surround" to
"Surrounding," and Page 2, Paragraph 1, Sentence 9, change "Minnesota Pollution Control
Agenda (MNPCA) to "Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MNPCA). Motion passed 5/0/1, with
Borkon abstaining due to absence at that meeting.
1. WEST HENNEPIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND TRUST (WHAHL T)
Presentation by Jan Callison, Executive Director
Director Nielsen introduced Jan Callison, Executive Director of West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land
Trust (WHAHL T), and City of Minnetonka Councilmember to the Commission.
Ms. Callison stated her interest in affordable housing spanned many years. She reviewed the purpose of
her presentation including a definition of the purpose and advantages ofWHAHLT, as well as the process
utilized by cities and agencies in working to perpetuate affordable housing in Metro communities. She
defined WHAHL T as a tool for determining permanence of affordable housing. In utilizing this tool,
homeowners were allowed to purchase a home on land owned by the Land Trust. The land and house
would be severed, thus, allowing a residential mortgage to be less costly to a homeowner as the value of
the land was removed from the mortgaged amount. The Land Trust was advantageous as it kept the
subsidy in the dwelling by restricting the resale to another qualified buyer or to WHAHLT, and the
appreciation was limited. Ms. Callison stated the idea of a land trust was not new and had been used by
the University of Minnesota as well as other businesses, and had become more commonplace in regular
marketplace housing in at least thirty states, and the communities of St. Paul, Rochester, and Duluth,
Minnesota as well as many more.
Ms. Callison stated WHAHL T gave stability to families, making them more self-reliant and allowed them
tax deductions. She noted almost all the benefits of homeownership were found without the whole price
package. WHAHL T was a non-profit agency started in Minnetonka in May of 2001. Its territory covered
all metropolitan suburban areas, outside the City of Minneapolis. She also stated WHAHL T recognized
people in all areas like to live and work in the same community, and it was the intent of the Land Trust to
do so. She noted by the end of the year, WHAHLT would own eight homes, with one in Richfield. A
typical home in the Land Trust would be purchased by WHAHLT for approximately $190,000, and
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
December 3, 2002
Page 2 of 8
would be sold to the owner for $120,000 or less. The appreciation on the house would then be restricted,
she explained, to approximately 35%. This allowed people to have a mortgage payment of approximately
$1000, including mortgage, taxes, and insurance for the home. She noted that clients have a low income,
and were often single-female heads of households, disabled, or an older adult parent with an adult
disabled child, persons of various ethnic origin and occupation. She noted one reason the City of
Minnetonka had chosen to become involved with the WHAHL T was because of the non-profit access to
funding available to the City. Next year's goal was to increase the amount of homes purchased to total
10-12 homes. Also, she stated the impact of WHAHL T allowed the City a chance to refine the housing
market before growth become too aggressive. Other advantages cited for the program included the ability
to serve a city's own residents thereby preserving the diversity and character of an area or neighborhood.
Money placed in the program was not lost, and it had proved to be a fairly flexible tool for use with
existing housing. She noted the Land Trust had been working with developers regarding designating
Land Trust units in housing developments, and a land trust had the option of being created and preserved
in growth of housing for the future as well.
The Commission asked various questions regarding the process and options available to a City and
homeowners in working with the Land Trust. Ms. Callison explained a City might have to decide
affordability for home prices based on its own demographics. She stated the Land Trust had a Board of
Directors with communities represented to work on affordability issues. She went on to explain certain
banks were involved in working with this program, as it was not a conventional method of obtaining a
mortgage. Homeowners were also expected to attend a class on owning a home, and often owners were
matched with churches or other volunteer services to provide assistance in dealing with various
maintenance issues of the home or added expenses, such as lawnmowers and lawn maintenance.
. With regard to cities working with the Land Trust, Ms. Callison explained cities could come forward to
work with the Land Trust in maintaining housing in a city. The process involved the Land Trust working
with a realtor to assess market rate for a home, and the Land Trust would then purchase the property and
hold it for three months, and then work with various qualified homeowners. She stated grants were
available for this program. She explained the necessary startup costs and how a City would help fund the
purchase price of the property through CDBG funds and a line of credit. She also noted the financial
support of certain organizations in the Twin Cities' area as a philanthropic endeavor to create housing
units for people who happen to work in a certain community. She stated ideally contributions would be
made toward land purchase and funding would be used to provide matching dollars for the program,
however it was important to realize staffing costs were a reality for the program as well.
.
Chair Bailey thanked Ms. Callison on behalf of the Commission for her insightful presentation shared this
evenmg.
2. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE TO BUILD ON SUBSTANDARD LOT
Applicant: Craig and Karine Buechler
Location: 5655 Eureka Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:43 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He also stated all items recommended for approval this evening would be placed on the December 16,
2002, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant, after having received a condenmation order for his property at
5655 Eureka Road, proposed to demolish the existing two-family dwelling that currently occupied the
site. In its place he proposed to build a new single-family home on the lot. The lot was substandard for
the R-1C zoning district in which it was located. As a result, the applicant had requested a variance to
build on a lot that did not meet 70 percent of the area requirement of the R-1C Single Family Residential
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
December 3, 2002
Page 3 of8
.
district. Director Nielsen also noted the Council had stayed action on the condemnation proceedings for
this case pending a request for variance being submitted for consideration.
He went on to explain the property was triangular shaped, and was located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of Eureka Road and the Hennepin County Railroad Authority (LRT Trail) right-of-way. The
lot contained approximately 12,567 square feet of area, and did not comply with current front or side yard
setback requirements. An existing detached garage would also be removed in favor of an attached garage
on the new home.
Director Nielsen reviewed the criteria for building on a substandard lot, noting the lot was in separate
ownership from adjoining properties, and the applicant's lot was 1433 square feet short of the area
requirement. The width of the lot was considered adequate. The proposed house would be in compliance
with all R1-C setback requirements, where the current house was not at all. Director Nielsen suggested
the applicant remove 398 square feet of hardcover from the proposed plan as it exceeded 33 percent of the
lot. This reduction appeared to be possible by reducing the driveway and deck area.
With regard to the variance request, Director Nielsen noted the applicant could repair the existing
building and use it as a single-family dwelling, despite the nonconformities of the lot and existing
structure. Although the applicant could expand the existing home, under current zoning requirements the
applicant was not able to upgrade the existing structure, which was considered substandard from a
building code perspective. Director Nielsen went on to explain the applicant had designed the new home
to comply with the setback requirements and hard cover limitations of the current Zoning Code. The
proposed home would not adversely affect the character of the existing neighborhood, and was in scale
with the size of the existing buildable lot. He recommended approval of this variance, with the condition
placed regarding removal of 398 square feet of hardcover from the proposed plans.
.
Craig Buechler, owner of the property, stated the current property was an eyesore, and he thought the
proposed plan was the best thing to do. He stated he was going to build the summer of 2003, but was
ready now, and thought the plans should work for the benefit of all. He stated he needed to sell his
previous home and build the new home in the next year. He also stated the reduction in hardcover was
not anticipated to be a problem.
Commissioner Gagne questioned whether Mr. Buechler could possibly tear down the existing house
structure in the near future prior to construction of the new home on the site. Mr. Buechler explained the
constraints of a construction loan stated a need for demolition and construction of a structure to take place
in the same timeframe.
Duane Laurilla, 5595 Eureka Road, stated he had examined the plans for the property, and was pleased
with how nice the proposed design for the new house fit the property.
Chair Bailey closed the Public testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:51 P.M.
Commissioner Woodruff stated she would like to grant the variance with a time frame of construction and
demolition to occur within one year's time or less. She was concerned about the reduction in hardcover
and stated she would like to see demolition of the house occurring sooner rather than later in the
construction timeline. She stated she thought the house was well designed and noted it fit the lot well.
.
Commissioner Gagne agreed, stating he was also concerned with an expedient demolition.
Commissioner White stated she did not want to put the burden of a specific time frame for construction
and demolition to occur for the project, as there were many variables that needed to work concurrently for
the applicant. She stated the applicant had acted in good faith with the City and had continued to do so
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
December 3, 2002
Page 4 of 8
.
throughout these proceedings. Commissioners Borkon and Pisula agreed, noting stipulations could be
considered, however, it was important to give the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Chair Bailey questioned why a year was considered to be too long for construction and demolition in this
case. Director Nielsen stated six months would be considered reasonable as the property had been under
notice for a few months already and the property owner had a responsibility to maintain it.
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Recommending Approval of the Variance, subject to Staff
recommendations, and with demolition of the current structure to occur within in six months time.
Commissioner White thought nine months to one year seemed more suitable to work within the
constraints of the construction and housing markets. Commissioner Borkon agreed, noting the structure
had existed a long time in its current state with no recourse from the City prior to the recent condemnation
proceeding. She thought it unfair the burden fell to the current owner to remove the structure, and she
thought it more appropriate to give the benefit to the applicant of being able to become more financially
stable with regard to construction and demolition.
Discussion ensued regarding the course of action the case would take regarding the condemnation
proceedings without a variance for the structure.
Motion passed 4/2, with Borkon and White dissenting.
Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 8: 15 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8 :20 P.M.
.
3.
7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
Applicant: St. John the Baptist Church rep. Cemetery of the Resurrection
Location: 5555 Covington Road
Director Nielsen stated St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in Excelsior owned the Cemetery of the
Resurrection, located at 5425 Covington Road. The cemetery occupied 15 acres of land zoned R-1A,
Single Family Residential. At present, approximately 4.2 acres of the land was being used for gravesites.
Plans had been submitted for the remaining development of the cemetery property amounting to
approximately 2.75 acres. Once completed, the cemetery would occupy less than one half of the total
site, with the remaining land being designated as open space or wetland. In addition to the Conditional
Use Permit, the church had requested and amendment to the Zoning Code that would allow grave sites
with flush lawn headstones as an allowable encroachment in the required setback from the public right-of-
way. Director Nielsen noted the land use and zoning to the north of the subject property included a
vacant Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) right-of-way parcel and the City's Southeast
Area water tower; to the east held Old Market Road and Single-Family residential housing as did the land
use to the south. Covington Road and additional Single-Family Residential housing were to the west of
the subject property. All surrounding zoning for the site was classified as Single-Family Residential with
areas to the south and west being part of the Shoreland district of Christmas Lake.
.
Director Nielsen then reviewed the request with regard to criteria for a Conditional Use Permit, a Zoning
Text Amendment, and General Site Design. With regard to issues of the Conditional Use Permit, he
explained access to the cemetery was from Covington Road, despite the cemetery having frontage on a
parcel that was currently part of the right-of-way for an arterial street (frontage road for Highway 7). He
recommended issues of access be examined regarding the City's requirements, as neither existing
cemetery in the City complied with City regulations. He went on to state the site was very well screened
from all directions. He recommended the proposed row of spruce trees to be planted in the expanded
southeast corner of the site, be planted immediately in order for a substantial buffer to develop in time for
the cemetery's expansion. He further explained the proposal was considered to be consistent with the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
December 3, 2002
Page 5 of8
.
Comprehensive Plan and was very respectful of the site and surrounding uses. The use was considered
compatible with existing and future land uses for the surrounding areas. Also, the future development of
the cemetery would not depreciate surrounding properties, as the cemetery had existed for a long time
with a premier City neighborhood developing around it. At present, the site was served only by
municipal water service from the City.
With regard to the zoning text amendment, the applicant had requested that gravesites with flush mounted
headstones be allowed up to 15 feet from the property line. This would affect a strip of land in the
northwest comer of the site, approximately 200 feet long abutting the MNDOT right-of-way parcel; and
approximately 300 feet abutting Old Market Road on the east side of the site. Director Nielsen also
explained allowable encroachments were provided in the City code. The use of the setback area would
allow the applicant to maximize the capacity of the property while preserving the sensitive areas of the
site. Use of the setback areas for this purpose was considered consistent with the maintenance of green
space for any kind of development, and the headstones could be considered less obtrusive than other
allowable encroachments within the Code. He did suggest the size of headstones be limited within the
setback area.
.
With regard to the General Site Design for the project, Director Nielsen explained the applicant proposed
relocating the entry to the cemetery approximately 150 feet south on Covington Road. He noted this was
understandable given the proximity to the unusual frontage road intersection, and suggested it be subject
to review of sight lines by the City Engineer. Landscaping associated with two proposed mausoleum
buildings should be done in conjunction with future construction. The proposed mausoleum buildings
were to be built in the future, with conceptual plans being presented as part of this proposal. Ultimate
plans for these structures would be subject to the Conditional Use process at the time of construction.
Director Nielsen commended the applicant on the quality of the application and noted analysis was
considered to be consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Code.
Bill Sanders, landscape architect with Sanders, Wacker, Bergly, Incorporated, was in attendance as well
as Deacon Gary Hoffman from St. John's the Baptist Church, and Duane Temple, a Cemetery
Boardmember.
Mr. Sanders stated it was important to examine the Master Plan process to see how long the cemetery
could continue to grown and still remain respectful to the site. He reviewed the background, current
status, and Master Plan, trees, and phasing of the requested expansion of the site. He noted the
mausoleums would not be economically feasible at this time, but concept plans were submitted for review
for future planning.
Commissioners requested Mr. Sanders provide clarification on the focal points utilized in the cemetery
plans, as well as a trail proposed for accessing the site for maintenance and walking.
Chair Bailey opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:45 P.M.
Frank Tonamaker, 5480 Covington Road, stated he lived across the street from the cemetery, and the
proposed driveway entrance would be located directly across from his driveway. He stated he thought the
entrance should be kept closer to its current location as people often drove very quickly over the hill in
that area. Mr. Sanders explained the present location was difficult to accommodate in the remodeling as
the proposed entrance allowed for 400 additional feet in that area of the cemetery. He further commented
the proposed entry would allow for nice visual location to the proposed future mausoleum.
.
Dave Mason, attorney representing Cindy and Jack Mayeron, 5580 Old Market Road, stated he was
present this evening to review the points provided in a letter to the Commission regarding concerns for
the effect the proposed expansion would have on property values in the area. He also stated his clients
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
December 3, 2002
Page 6 ors
.
were concerned the proposed landscaping would not grow, nor be functional in the proposed location.
His clients also requested the Commission review the issue of "swapping land" regarding this proposal.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:53 P.M.
Commissioner Borkon stated she was concerned with the proposed change to the driveway entrance to the
site, noting it seemed the driveway in its current location would provide less impact to the neighborhood
than to move it further toward the residential homes on Covington Road. She requested clarification on
the "land swapping" issue regarding this case. Commissioner Gagne reviewed this issue, noting he
agreed with leaving the driveway entrance in its current location, and he adamantly believed there would
not be a negative impact to the residents as the cemetery had been there for quite some time and people
had moved into the neighborhood knowing of its existence.
Commissioner White questioned the current species and location of trees growing in the southeast area of
the cemetery. Mr. Sanders stated her concerns were valid and further consideration would be given to
choosing other trees that would be more shade tolerant and would still provide adequate screening for the
neighbors.
Chair Bailey questioned Mrs. Mayeron regarding her concerns for expansion. Mrs. Mayeron stated she
would like to see a reevaluation of what was proposed as best options for all parties. She stated she had
not seen people making use of the open space to the north of the site as was stated in a previous Public
Hearing on this case. Further she encouraged the Commission to walk the site to see where the best
design would make the most sense.
. Mr. Sanders explained, in response to Commissioner Pisula's question, that the mausoleum would most
likely be built in the distant future, as it was difficult to justify the construction expenses. Also, he stated
the change in the driveway could be considered as part of the second phase of the proposed expansion.
Commissioner Gagne stated he believed the driveway was better suited to its current location. Director
Nielsen stated there were issues with the current driveway being offset from Carrie Lane. Commissioner
Borkon stated it seemed possible to improve the driveway in its current location without having to move
it toward a residential driveway.
Pisula moved, Woodruff seconded, Recommending Approval of the Conditional Use
Permit, subject to Staff recommendations, for St. John the Baptist Church rep. Cemetery of the
Resurrection, 5555 Covington Road.
Commissioner Borkon stated she thought the proposed driveway would intrude on the residential area,
impacting it more than its current location, and it would provide a poor location for ingress to the
cemetery. Commissioner Gagne agreed.
Commissioner Pisula commented a cemetery did not generate as much traffic as a housing development
would in the same location.
.
Chair Bailey stated he supported the motion as he thought the request met the criteria for a CUP. He
stated the expansion would not depreciate the surrounding properties, and he did not think the driveway
entrance proposed would cause problems for the resident across the street. Commissioner Woodruff
agreed.
Motion passed 5/1, with Borkon dissenting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
December 3, 2002
Page 7 of 8
.
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of the Zoning Text Amendment as
requested, and Directing Staff to Prepare a revised draft of the Zoning Text including revisions
regarding access requirements. Motion passed 6/0.
4. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - BOYER LAKE MINNEWASHTA - PRELIMINARY
AND FINAL PLATS
Applicant: Boyer Building Corporation
Location: Portions of 3121 Highway 7 (Chanhassen)
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 9:20 P.M.
Director Nielsen stated the applicant owned property in Chanhassan, Minnesota, and was platting lots for
development as Single-Family homes on the site including the very narrow strip of land that extended
into Shorewood. He further explained the platted areas in this narrow strip of land would be set aside as
outlots, and as such were defined as being not buildable. Restrictive covenants would state the outlots
would not be sold separately from the adjoining respective lots.
John Boyer, applicant, stated his father owned the property and had asked him to develop the property,
thus, necessitating this request.
Keith Monjack, resident living near Highway 7, requested clarification about the proposal. Director
Nielsen provided satisfactory clarification of issues for Mr. Monjack.
.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:30 P.M.
Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, Recommending Approval of the Preliminary and Final Plats
for Boyer Lake Minnewashta, for Boyer Building Corporation, Portions of 3121 Highway 7
(Chanhassan). Motion passed 6/0.
5. DISCUSSION REGARDING MASS TRANSIT: OPT-OUT ALTERNATIVE
Presentation by Lisa Raduenz, Transportation Consultant
Lisa Raduenz, Transportation Consultant for the City, presented information on the City's Opt-out
alternative for public transportation. She reviewed background legislation regarding this issue, noting the
"Opt-Out law" allowed cities, which were geographically located at the end of existing Metro Transit
routes and those receiving low levels of public transit service, to form their own community-based public
transit systems. She noted twelve cities had chosen to do so as result of this law, and in the 2000
Minnesota legislative session, the cities of Shorewood and Minnetonka were given the opportunity to also
"opt-out" of the metro transit system and participate in a transit replacement service program. The
deadline for these cities to make a final decision to "opt-out" was set by law to be received by the
Legislature no later than June 30, 2003. She stated her firm had been retained by the City of Shorewood
to conduct a study to determine the potential and impacts of "opting out" of the metropolitan area regional
transit system. This study would result in a report that would provide sufficient information, possible
alternatives, and recommendations to the City to assist in determining the best course of action for the
City to take regarding the provision of public transit service to residents and employers in Shorewood.
.
Ms. Raduenz explained an Independent Board of Directors, appointed by member cities to make transit or
transportation funding decisions allowed "opt-out" communities to make their own decisions about the
level, type, and area of local service provided to residents within their cities. She also noted some
Metropolitan Council oversight and regulation would still exist with regard to capital procurement,
regional programs, and federal subsidies. She reviewed Minnetonka's partial "opt-out" decision, and then
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
December 3, 2002
Page 8 of8
reviewed the objectives for the "Opt-Out" Study in the City of Shorewood. She explained this study
would review public transportation needs of the Shorewood community, summarize the "best practices"
of existing "Opt-Out" systems, identify financial and operational issues if Shorewood would choose to
"opt-out" of regional systems, provide a comparison of potential services under the "Opt-Out" system
against continued Metro Transit service provisions, and would provide alternatives and make final
recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. She further explained the timeline of
the study and what could be expected at each stage of the study. She stated she would return with
findings of the Study for comment by the Commission prior to March, 2003. She thanked the
Commission for its attention this evening.
Chair Bailey thanked Ms. Raduenz for her presentation on "Opt-Out" Transit Service options.
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated the January 7, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda would include a
Study Session to discuss issues associated with the proposed Work Program for the Commission in 2003.
Commissioners were encouraged to gather ideas for inclusion on the Work Plan for that meeting.
8. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the November 25, 2002,
Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
· Liaison to LCEC
There had not been a meeting of the Land Conservation and Environment Committee since the most
recent Planning Commission meeting.
· SLUC
There was nothing to report on this Committee at this time.
· Other
There were no other reports this evening.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of December 3,
2002, at 10:12 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary